Talk:Lolicon/Archive 7

message: And just before that picture was added, User:FloNight goes and removes the link to renchan which was discussed before and kept (unlike all the other imageboard links), with the message "contained hundreds of images of children in sex acts" rather than anything based on policy or in addition to the previous discussion.
Are we going to have to purge wikipedia of links to these images? I note that Imageboard still links to renchan and not4chan, if someone does want to go on a censorship rampage. Otherwise, I think the renchan link should be restored here. We had the discussion, the link is clearly marked, renchan has more content than just the images, we've been through this all before. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have links to popular porn sites in Pornography? Ashibaka tock 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that's relevant. Popular porn sites are (presumably?) just images, whereas renchan was kept because it wasn't just images - it's a forum with a fan community and discussion, etc. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Empornium from Pornography links a few days ago, as spam. Ashibaka tock 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but other article discussions have concluded with opposite opinions. This is not something that a few people should decide. I've made my opinion known. We will see what other people think. It is up for discussion like everything else on Wikipedia. By the way, I'm a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate. But sexually graphic images of children being sexually exploited is out of bounds.  FloNight talk 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, don't think the concepts of being a strong free speech, anti-censorship advocate are particularly compatible with wanting the removal of clearly-marked links to sites with *drawings* of such images (there are no children to be 'exploited' involved). But despite that, I don't particularly have a strong opinion about it staying - I think the stuff is disgusting, to be honest - I just object to selective removal of such links from this article and not from others, and to you removing it without even mentioning it here. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wiki that everyone can edit, right. We aren't suppose to ask persmission to edit. I don't edit war. I take it out once. If someone else puts it back I will wait for community consensus. I've taken inappropriate external links off other articles.  I'm picking on this article.FloNight talk 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I guess it's a good thing that this article never has and never will include "images of children being sexually exploited".  But nice strawman there.  --Cyde Weys 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde Weys, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about this point. The images do show children being sexually exploited. I think it is harmful to Wikipedia to promote these imageboards. Giving the impression that we cater to pedophiles is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. There is no real upside to including the links. Wikipedia is not a directory for imageboards. I'm sorry if you disagree with my thinking. I don't think censorship concerns trump the other concerns  FloNight talk 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so name the child being exploited when someone puts pen to paper and draws one of these pictures.  By the way, do you consider "normal" art exploitation of women when they draw nudes?  Was Michaelangelo exploiting men when he sculpted David?  I'm really interested in hearing how you can possibly justify that some person is being exploited merely because someone is drawing something.  --Cyde Weys 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not exploitation of a single named individual but of a class of people. It's valid to hold, for instance, that drawings of women being raped and degraded are expolitive of women, regardless  Arguable, but certainly valid. Herostratus 20:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The link goes to a clear, unambiguous warning page.  There is nothing illegal in any jurisdiction on that warning page.  Plus it looks silly to have a URL that isn't linked.  That's the whole point of hypertext.  I've reverted it back.  Powers 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good move to restore the link.  The warning page should be sufficient.  A suitable warning here with the link is good too, but no reason to remove the link. Johntex\talk 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See Lolicon#Legal_issues.  Your questions and assumptions are addressed in the Lolicon article, quite visibly for any reader.  -kotra 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imageboard links 

message: I've removed the hyperlink function on the link to the renchan site, because an accidental click on the link can criminalise someone in many jurisdictions.  This seems the best solution and is one practised in other articles with links of a sensitive nature, for example Last Measure. Hiding  talk 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link goes to a clear, unambiguous warning page.  There is nothing illegal in any jurisdiction on that warning page.  Plus it looks silly to have a URL that isn't linked.  That's the whole point of hypertext.  I've reverted it back.  Powers 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good move to restore the link.  The warning page should be sufficient.  A suitable warning here with the link is good too, but no reason to remove the link. Johntex\talk 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See Lolicon#Legal_issues.  Your questions and assumptions are addressed in the Lolicon article, quite visibly for any reader.  -kotra 03:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the hyperlink function

message: I'm not going to click the link, just in case, so I'm going to take it on good faith that the link doesn't take you to images immediately.  However, there is no need for us to provide a link to images to show an example; the nature of the images is easily conveyed by text.  People need to consider if we are advertising this particular site.  If the goal is to provide links to images, then why has this forum been chosen in particular?  Wikipedia is not a links directory, Wikipedia is not for advertising, Wikipedia does not link to copyright violating sites, and Wikipedia does not generally link to forums unless the article is about the forum in question, closely related or of a high standard.  The question is, is this forum closely related, does that counter balance the advertising, copyright and vanity violations, and can a better link to a site where examples can be found be provided, if such examples are welcome. Given that the default position is to not include such links except in certain circumstances, people should accept the link should be removed until and  unless there is a strong consensus to include it. Hiding  talk 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be links to a couple of imageboards and Renchan stayed because it is more than an imageboard.  In the previous debates and edit wars over the links apathy was the majority opinion.  Also, the only policy we have on links is the copyright one; the rest are guidelines.  Are they commiting copyright infringement?  I don't know.  Lastly, even the part of the guideline that says to not link to forums was recently added and people object to it.    You should also be careful about saying what wikipedia "generally does" as there are plenty of counter-examples (yes, this is a red herring.)  Instead of debating and edit warring why not try to find better links?  I have failed thusfar, but maybe someone else will succeed. Maybe someone should post on one of the lolicon fansites and ask for links that would be germane?  Kotepho 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether something is a guideline or policy matters little, deviation from either requires strong consensus and shouldn't be the norm.  However, it's worth noting WP:NOT is official policy, and notes "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." As to me describing anything as what wikipedia "generally does", please note I didn't, that's the explicit term used in policy.  I am also unclear as to why better links are needed, and why this link is needed.  Once again, the default position is to not have the link. Hiding  talk 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not generally link to forums unless the article is about the forum in question versus generally should not be linked to.  One is prescriptive and the other is descriptive; one is your words and the other is the style guide.  There is quite the difference.  Also, there are quite salient differences between policies, guidelines, and style guides.  I'm not sure how the link is advertising either, at least moreso than any other.  If you cannot figure out why better links are needed--well I don't know what to say.  Most of the article is unsourced and all of the other links do not discuss the subject in general.  I am also not sure how you support your position that we default to not having something.  If that is the case, why do we need consensus to delete an article instead of keeping it out until there is consensus to include it? Kotepho 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll let my words speak for themselves.  I'll also pass on the debate regarding policies and styleguides and so on. As to the link being advertising, per WP:SPAM Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of... Web sites, fandoms.  With this link we're promoting one forum, one website, one fandom, over others. We also have to review our intentions.  But you haven't yet declared why we need this link, beyond the idea that we have to link to somewhere where people can see this pictures, which seems daft given the ubiquity of google and it's image search facility. Oh, and don't think this article is treated any different, people frequently clean out external links. As to defaulting to keep on articles: what you'll find is that links aren't articles, so different policies apply.  If you can't enlighten me as to why better links are needed, then I have no choice but to ponder your intentions. Hiding  talk 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link inclusion policies

message: Reverting this edit because the editor (User:Primetime) responded, after prompting, with the following rationale: ""I don't care about your lengthy explanation, because (1) users should be able to click on links if they want to and (2) you are not an administrator."
The first point I feel is merely an argument of assertion which insufficiently addresses the concerns raised by earlier discussions. The second point I found to be... well, different, anyway. Herostratus 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that there should not be a hotlink to the site? I notice that you participate in the "pedophilia article watchlist" project, so I'm going to assume that you're trying to make it harder to find the pictures for censorship purposes. FYI, I'm a libertarian, so you're going to have a hard time convincing me.--Primetime 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated my reasons above, in detail. You can assume whatever you like, I've been attacked from both sides, but ad hominum attacks don't become you. I don't find a word of cogent explanation for your revert in your comment. I'd revert you again, but I won't be goaded. I request another editor to revert. Failing that, let's go get some broader input. Herostratus 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe broader input is being added in above sections of this page, in case you hadn't seen it.   Powers 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything above this section written after 12 April 2006. But let's take a look, exdent, and summarize. It's hard to keep track of all this, but if I have the sequence right:
*Link removed. Reasons given: Links to forums not encouraged, copyvio issues, Wikipedia PR/political issues, (mild) note by Jimbo.
*Link restored. Reasons given: You overstated Jimbo's comment (accepted); links to forums are discouraged, not prohibited (accepted); no one can accidentally click to illegal pics (granted); we need some link to show pics (disputed); discouragement of links to forums is itself controversial (not accepted as germane). Some more back-and-forth that it's harder to summarize, including raising of more anti-link issues. No real attempt made to solve copyvio issues or Wikipedia PR/political issues, link-to-forums-is-OK argument seems quite shaky, Jimbo's intervention deprecated but not negated. I just don't see that the issues raised were addressed well (or in some cases at all) or that the pro-link points raised would likely be very convincing to a hypothetical disinterested party. So,
*Link removed. 
*Link restored. Reasons given: argument by assertion ("users should be able to click on links if they want to"), non sequiter (you are not an admin), ad hominum/assumption of bad faith/red herring (you, your project, censorship), not sequiter (I am a libertarian).
*Link removed. Reason given: No good new arguments given for restoration. Herostratus 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What you fail to mention though is there was already much debate over this and the new arguments that you bring are not convincing.  Having a non-hyperlink seems quite silly.  What exactly does it solve?  The only issue that is changes is the accidental clicking which you yourself agree is unsound. Kotepho 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thank you for summarizing the argument, Herostratus. Another thing I notice is that part of the summary of the link can be confused with the URL, leading users to the wrong site. Also, I don't really care about copyvios. It's my controversial opinion that Wikipedia is not really liable for copyright infringement on our site, let alone on sites we link to. They certainly wouldn't sue us for this, as the stewards of Wikipedia cannot be expected to be aware of every link in every article. Even if they were found to be liable, a jury might fine us 5 cents to compensate the company in question for lost revenue.As for morality, I don't think copyright infringement is wrong so long as it is used for non-commercial purposes. (I understand that you haven't heard that one before, either.) I also think it's important for pedophilia to be understood. We shouldn't hide it, because if we don't understand it, we won't know how to fix it or we might not even be worried about it.--Primetime 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-activated link is a compromise. Based on WP:EL and WP:RS, I think no external links should be included to unregualted unmoderated imageboards with images of children being sexually exploited by adults. It is unencycopedic and irresponsible to include these links. I completely removed the link on April 4th. It was readded. After Jimbo suggested deactivating the link, I supported this compromise positon. If we do an Rfc, I will offer complete removal as an option. Your idea that copyright can be ignored is clearly out side of Wikipedia policy. There is a difference between using an image as examples of a type of art with critical discussion, and promoting the viewing of images at image boards. FloNight talk 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can compromise, too. I'll go ahead and add angle brackets to set off the URL so the summary will not be confused with the address. As for a link compromise suggested by Jimbo, did he even mention whether it is a hotlink or not?--Primetime 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, that's not much of a compromise. Sorry. But I do appreciate you working to be flexible. Anyway, you'd have to get The Psycho to sign off on it anyway, it looks. I don't know how you'd do that, though, since he responds to messages on his talk page by deleting them. Herostratus 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Reversion of edit of 15:09, 11 April 2006 

message: I found a possibly-useful quote on the legality of this sort of thing in the US:
Even so, legal experts said such virtual behavior between adults isn't likely to break the law, since there are no real children involved.
"It would not be (illegal) under child pornography laws because no actual child was used in the act," said Jack Balkin, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School and an expert on legal issues surrounding virtual worlds. "Child pornography laws receive special treatment under the First Amendment because children are sexually abused and people traffic in the results of that abuse." This does not apply in the age-play situation, he said. 
On the other hand, the section on laws in the US already seems to cover things fairly well. Anyone got any opinions on whether that quote should be added? 86.137.192.163 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote above is referred to behavior between adults, where one is pretending to be a child - "...such virtual behavior between adults ...".  If so, then I don't see how it is relevant here. Johntex\talk 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality in the US 

message: It normally isn't sexual so I don't think it really fits as a 'similar concept' in the same way that shotacon and hentai are.  Would you object to it just being listed at the end instead of similar concepts? Kotepho 14:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my opinion was mostly based on discussion above, where someone mentioned that Moe is (for some people) considered necessary to categorize something as lolicon.  I would tend to agree that perhaps "similar concepts" is not the correct categorization for the link to Moe (slang), but I do think it belongs in the article somewhere, as it is at least related, if not "similar".  =)  Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be that grouping it with Hentai and Shotacon gives the wrong impression of what it might be.  Shotacon certainly applies as a similar concept, but the other two aren't really in the same sense.  Maybe just kill that heading totally as the intro mentions shotacon now? Kotepho 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moe 

message: As noted above and as has been widely suggested for awhile, I'm placing an RfC on the Renchan link. I summarized arguments below; I tried to summarize the keep-the-link arguments as fairly as I could, but of course link advocates may want to edit them (similarly for delete-the-link arguments). Herostratus 07:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I'm obviously not a total newcomer to this issue, but let me state my position. There are good arguments, and good editors, on both sides of this matter. No one is right or wrong, though solutions may be effective or ineffective. 
Back some months ago, during a previous dispute about links, I had checked this site. Since then the software and setup have changed markedly. The images are less obvious now than they had been before, requiring an addtitional click or two. However I also came across this poll: http://forums.renchan.org/showthread.php?t=415, (work safe) which reveals that 20% of Renchan forum participants responding found the site from this link, the second leading source after unnamed "other boards". As an encyclopedia it is our job to report on, not affect, reality.
I disagree with the notion that we must provide a link to illustrate the article, beyond the existing image. I disagree that we are not providing a link to a source which is primarily a purveyor of improperly copied, copyrighted, material. Though children may not have been hurt in the drawing of the images, they depict imaginary children who have been brutally raped for sexual stimulation as if that is a desirable situation. Though they are mere drawings, blueprints are also mere drawings yet blueprints determine the outcome of a structure. Regardless, we are not talking about completely banishing Renchan-  only whether the link will be "live" or whether it will require the reader to take an extra step to go from Wikipedia to depictions of children in extremely pornographic settings. I am in favor of reducing the google-rating of this site by de-activating the link. -Will Beback 08:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the link should be text-based or removed. Since what we want is images to illustrate this, why not link to the Google Image search for "lolicon"? Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Google Image search for "lolicon" is not particularly informative.  Many results are duplicated, and other results don't qualify as lolicon.  It'd be better than nothing, but I think a link to something that explicitly calls out its content as lolicon would be better.  Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Anytime we link to anything, we're going to be driving up traffic at that site.  While it's true that that affects reality, it doesn't affect it in the traditional way that encyclopedias avoid.  Encyclopedias also affect reality by informing their readers; surely that's not something undesirable!  Anyway, Renchan is currently the eighth site listed by Google on a search for "lolicon" (WP is #1, with the Answers.com mirror at #3).  I highly doubt anyone looking for lolicon would be kept away from Renchan.org by removing the link to it.  And making it text-based looks silly (it defeats the whole point of hypertext) and merely adds a third or fourth step to the two or three already needed to access the images.  Powers 13:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never edited this article in the past, but let me offer my opinion. External links should add value to an article that the article cannot provide itself - the question here is, then, does the link do anything to enhance the article? There's already an example of a lolicon-style picture in the first paragraph - it's questionable whether one example of a lolicon-promoting website/forum would add any value to the article. It's just plain precarious to link to a website that might infringe on the laws of some countries when there is no hard-set rationale to include the link. (If lolicon were something promoted by a single website, and if the link was to that website, then that might be a good reason to include the link, offsetting the legal danger.) As for a text-based link, I consider that to be out of the question - it's bad style, and it would be much better to just delete the link if this were the case. Plus, I agree that people who want to look for lolicon material will simply shop elsewhere - that's none of our business. While I know that Wikipedia has a policy of no censorship, frankly, I simply see no point in including a link that causes so much trouble, both legal and psychological. -- Tangotango 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the starting page on the Renchan website, contains a disclaimer regarding the illegality of the content in certain juridictions, and actually refers to the wikipedia article, the comment of  (contain lolicon images that may be illegal in your jurisdiction) should be removed. I feel the link is useful to those who wish to research the subject. Wikipedia isn't censored, and it shouldn't be. There are many articles in wikipedia that contains content that can be illegal in certain less developed countries, just because this article links to a site that is illegal in some western jurisdictions doesn't mean this article should be except from the anti-censorship  policy. From WP:NOT: While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted.
--Eivindt@c 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment they do have a disclaimer now, but we have no control over whether that disclaimer stays or not. Johntex\talk 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly having the disclaimer is not censorship; it is sound advice - as Johntex states, we cannot vouch that the site will have that or any disclaimer in the future. Personnally, I don't see how that link provides any value-added, besides helping people gain access to material already well explained in the article which may be illegal where they are. OTOH Wiki should not be censored - but the question is - are we putting material here just to prove that we aren't censored, or to provide shock, or to provide value added? IMHO only the last reason justifies putting up material or links which are not just potentially offensive, but known to be offensive to a large proportion of the public. Bridesmill 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, speaking for myself, I found the images on Renchan to be helpful in delineating the genre.  Some things just can't be adequately explained with just text.  I have no interest in shocking people nor in adding gratuitous images just to prove WP is not censored.  I wouldn't be arguing for it if I didn't think it was genuinely useful.  I'm certainly not wedded to the Renchan link in particular, but no one's suggested any replacement except a page of Google search results.  Powers 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People coming here from the RfC, please comment here 

message: Advertisements for forums/imageboards are not needed. They lower the quality of the encyclopedia and any user who wishes to study such images can easily find another way. Wikipedia is not a one stop source for pornnography nor a place to advertise.
In addtion the legality of this material is questionable in the U.S.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.60.37 (talk • contribs) 
:The article lacks images of the various genres of lolicon. As a compromise, readers can visit another site to see them. It\'s essential to see lolicon to understand the topic as a picture is worth a million words and the material is visual in nature--Primetime 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The website does not have to be hyperlinked in order for it to be available for those who wish to view Lolicon images. -Will Beback 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it more assuring to see them in blue as that makes the path seem more certain. It also helps the link stand out. Publishers usually either underline links or color them blue to make them stand out in books, as well.--Primetime 21:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can underline it if you feel it is insufficiently noticeable. -Will Beback 21:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No it isn't illegal. Also, in response to Will: the underlining of the link doesn't solve my other concern raised (certainty of the path) and it makes it harder to visit the site. We've already removed the old picture and the other link, but there's only so much that you guys will be able to get before we begin to feel like we're giving too much. Also, 67, can you sign your posts with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~? Thanks.--Primetime 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I thought "we" were saying that even changing the image was "giving" too much. In any case, it's not about us, it's about the encyclopedia. It's hard to see how links to websites carrying images depicting the imaginary rape of toddlers helps the project.   -Will Beback 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people who aren't pedophiles study pedophilia. I read an article about it in World Book Encyclopedia a little while ago out of curiosity. Further, making information on the subject available to other people is in line with Wikipedia's spirit of exploration. You mentioned that pedophilia is a bad thing earlier, but I don't think trying to hide the problem helps to solve it. Further, if the material is disgusting, letting other people see it will actually help your cause because they will see for themselves how bad it is. The same works for other forms of censorship. For example, if a neo-Nazi wants to deny the Holocaust, fine, because the very idea discredits him and his agenda.--Primetime 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Including the link, and underlining it, hardly amounts to hiding it. -Will Beback 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How would removing the link improve quality, though‽ As I said above, you need to see the material if you hope to understand it fully. As for legality, it's a link to an image board, which is quite different from showing the pictures directly. There are quite a few mitigating factors here, and if it wasn't legal, I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't have proposed it. Also, in response to Will above, I think we're a bit worried about the consequences of giving too many concessions, because although giving an inch in disputes like these is meaningful to you and me, it means nothing to some people, especially dogmatic ones. There will always another person who will want to remove something from the article. This article will be under attack indefinitely, and the disputes over it will not stop unless it is deleted.--Primetime 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concession and consensus is how Wikipedia operates. I disagree that one concession will lead to others and thence to the deletion of the article. For example, I don't think anyone is objecting to the new image. -Will Beback 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people have, see ../Archive 006, bottom heading.  Kotepho 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they're not objecting about it being too offensive. The objections I see are one perosns diens't understand the symbolism and another doesn't think the artistic style is accurate. Neither represent the beginning of a slippery slope towards total deletion of the article, IMO. -Will Beback 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Just stating that people have expressed concerns. Kotepho 22:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: I was always under the impression that toddlerakon was seperated because visualy, it looks preety different from regular lolicon. Not that it offended regular lolicon afficianados. Johhny-turbo 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's original research. Ashibaka tock 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toddlerakon 

message: SZadeh, Kotepho was correct to revert you. Please leave the image in place. The image on the Lolicon article has been discussed and found to be an example of lolicon that is appropriate for this article. This particular image replaced one that was quite controversial. You are welcome to voice your opinion on talk but it is unlikely that many editors are ready to revisit this issue now. The change happened fairly recently. You can read the discussion on the talk page and in it's archives. regards, FloNight talk 03:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FloNight. Johntex\talk 03:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, this particular image is not illegal in any country which has decent laws... (Nor is it illegal in America, the UK, Australia, and Canada.) JayW 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lolicon]]