Talk:Lolicon/Archive 8

message: The discussion really didn't seem to come to a conclusion and the links are multiplying like tribbles.  I'm not particularly going to revert their removal.  All of the links do have unobjectionable disclaimers(currently) though.  Kotepho 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fairly strong argument was made for having a link to show what "real" lolicon looks like. I don't think that the same argument can be made for having three links. -Will Beback 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be a good idea to change "Imageboards" to "Imageboard" so it doesn't look like it's an incomplete list.  -kotra 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've went ahead and changed it.  -kotra 09:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links redux

message: Hello! I'm sorry, but I didn't know that Lolipedia was added to the links section. I would actually feel better if it wasnt added yet, because it has not that much content yet. I was re-founded on 12th may, and so far i'm the only one adding articles (Additionally, it's a highly specialised wiki!), thats why its grwoing very slowly. The Special:Random will apparently only bring up articles that start with a roman letter. Those articles are only mostly stubs or redirects, because all the actual content articles start with or consist only of Unicode characters. I don't know if that will be fixed (so that you can get those articles by browsing a random page), but that aside. If you want a rought overview, check the allpages. ^_^; --Tsaryu 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolipedia 

message: I removed a bunch of stuff here because all the "word usage" stuff seems pedantic and I'm not sure that it's actually true. (At least, when I read Welcome to the NHK it seems that "lolicon" is used almost exclusively referring to ero-manga, and that's what the Japan Times articles indicate as well.) If someone can find a reliable source for it, feel free to put it back. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I removed the "fandom" statement, it's not only unsourced but also perverse (would you call pedophile activism the "child sex fandom"?). Ashibaka tock 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to do so, seeing as it was an incorrect statement in that context. However, "perversion" has nothing to do with it. Pedophiles could realistically be considered the child sex fandom. If the article said the "Lolicon community is the fandom for these works." then it would be an accurate statement whether or not you liked the idea. --tjstrf 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Community is a dirty word too. But this is totally off the subject of the article now so I'll drop it. Ashibaka tock 01:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Community a dirty word? WTF? Now you're just confusing me. --tjstrf 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fandom?

message: Purely out of curiosity, what is the legal status in Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.107.2 (talk • contribs) 
<personal attack removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.128.161 (talk • contribs) 
:No clue. But please refrain from launching personal attacks on each other, anonymouses. --tjstrf 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anonymice? Herostratus 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They sure squeak a lot, even for mice. ~  Porphyric Hemophiliac § 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Australia?