WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content (edit)

Revision as of 20:44, 6 January 2015

210 bytes added , 6 January 2015

m

→‎Controversial sites: indenting, etc.

Leucosticte

1,756

edits

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 ::::I don't think that BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki "are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law". Newgon Wiki has one page devoted to computer security tips. The other pages are about research, debate, outreach, etc. BoyWiki is largely about boylover culture and history. Also, I think you're missing the distinction between {{w|advocacy and incitement}}. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
-:::::This is how Leucosticte operates. He's technically correct. He sets up situations where a normal person will state something that is not factual, based on easy and very ready impressions. Leucosticte has never, for example, hosted child porn, but he created a page on [[Nathania]] that was obviously designed to appear as such, to people who do not know the legal definition of "child porn." Then, when people react, as is totally predictable, he has plenty of reason to believe that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong.
+::::This is how Leucosticte operates. He's technically correct. He sets up situations where a normal person will state something that is not factual, based on easy and very ready impressions. Leucosticte has never, for example, hosted child porn, but he created a page on [[Nathania]] that was obviously designed to appear as such, to people who do not know the legal definition of "child porn." Then, when people react, as is totally predictable, he has plenty of reason to believe that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong.
-::::::I am not going to discuss [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] here, beyond saying that routine content on ED is far more offensive than anything I saw reviewing [[BoyWiki]] yesterday. My position is that ED is a wiki and should be listed, with warnings.
+::::I am not going to discuss [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] here, beyond saying that routine content on ED is far more offensive than anything I saw reviewing [[BoyWiki]] yesterday. My position is that ED is a wiki and should be listed, with warnings.
-::::::However, if you just look and react to what you think "boylover" would mean, I can easily see why you would think BoyWiki was highly offensive. This much is clear. "Boylover" is ''not'' a term for sexual preference. On the other hand, some with a pedophilic male sexual preference might call themselves "boylovers." Many "boylovers," apparently, to the contrary, condemn unlawful behavior, including sexual contact with children. Some may not. Leucosticte has shown no sign of being either kind of "boylover," his agenda is always disruption and debate, especially where he thinks standard thinking is wrong. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
+::::However, if you just look and react to what you think "boylover" would mean, I can easily see why you would think BoyWiki was highly offensive. This much is clear. "Boylover" is ''not'' a term for sexual preference. On the other hand, some with a pedophilic male sexual preference might call themselves "boylovers." Many "boylovers," apparently, to the contrary, condemn unlawful behavior, including sexual contact with children. Some may not. Leucosticte has shown no sign of being either kind of "boylover," his agenda is always disruption and debate, especially where he thinks standard thinking is wrong. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
+:::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boylove&oldid=70544713 This] is the most recent WP article on the topic. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)