Talk:Lolicon/Archive 9

message: I find personally that image a bitt disturbing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.180.192 (talk • contribs) Tsaryu 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont like it either, but more because of its artwork. But this discussion has been held for several times now and until we find some japanese dude to draw us one, we have to stick with this one. --Tsaryu 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why exactly does it have to be drawn by a Japanese person? Are you such a weeaboo that a "Western drawing" cannot be accepted?The fact you don't like the style shouldn't be a reason to change it. I will, however, agree that the current image isn't as representative as it could be.--213.46.128.161 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How come the stuff that disgusts them (semi-explicit lolicon) gets yanked, yet the stuff that disgusts me (real gore) merits me harassment when I so much as suggest it not be put at the top of a page? People need to reach a consensus on whether to yank "WP is not censored" or to stick with it; I've repeatedly suggested a compromise (potentially offensive, or demonstrated to be by complaints, goes in a "spoiler"-type section or is linked to with warning), but people positively refuse, until sex is depicted. Zuiram 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure?  I see Wikipe-tan.  Powers T 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got changed, probably by someone who wasn't happy with the Final Solution-chan artstyle, to "Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit". Ashibaka tock 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed, that is not a typical image of a loli --Kgptzac 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The image

message: The cite should go to the text of the act itself, where you can clearly read the words "cartoon", "animated", etc. in whatever section it is, rather than to the CNN article which doesn't explain anything. I don't know why this was changed. Ashibaka tock 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROTECT Act again

message: I have reverted the section "Legal status in Germany", because what was changed is not clear. Clause 4 (that was the summary of the edit) of §184b sais:
"Those who attempt to get ahold of childpornographic depictions, which express a real or realistic event, shall be punished with imprisonment under two years or with a fine. Also those will be punished, who do have depictions named in clause 1."
However, the facial proportions used in Manga are far from "realistic" with their huge eyes, tiny noses and tiny mouths. I am not a lawyer, but as it was changed by 84.59.11.84 is just unacceptible. --Tsaryu 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: §184b of the german law code

message: Ok I replaced that ugly picture with something more appropriate.--Auspx 05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know it's free? You haven't posted the exact source URL of the image.  Unless it's specifically released it is presumed to be copyrighted. While :Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg may not be ideal, it is a free use image whose artist has made an explicit declaration of the license.  We should only use free images, except in limited cases with compelling reasons. -Will Beback 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not copyrighted. I haven't posted the source because we aren't allowed to link to lolicon sites but if you must know the source, it is not4chan.--Auspx 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a hilarious statement. So if an image has been posted at not4chan it's not copyrighted anymore?  Zorndyke 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The not4chan servers became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time. In a panic, they tried to pull the plug... Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 13:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what? --Tsaryu@ 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just a little reference to The Terminator series. The whole concept of not4chan becoming self-aware made me think of Skynet. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, knew I knew it. Well, my post was a reference to your signature. --Tsaryu@ 09:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! I actually forgot that I even had a signature. Seriously. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you draw it yourself? Ashibaka tock 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New image.

message: Ok, so I'm getting tired of the image that has everone fussing and I'm attempting to do a lolicon on my own. Keep in mind that I normally don't draw. And when I do draw I have only recently started trying to do anime/style. And when I do that style I'm certainly not drawing lolicon.
*First image shows what I drew in pencil as a rough sketch. Actually based off of a picture from Koi Kaze, which makes it quite not free enough for the article. However, it is only used for reference to what lolicon can look like. In the final drawing, it won't be directly based off of anything.
*Keep in mind that a lot is lost in scanning the image (I use light pencil marks which don't show up when scanned. To give a better example of what I actually drew, I put it through a little process to make it easier to see the outline.
*The third image is an example of the artistic style I do nowadays. I draw in Flash, so everything is going to be smooth. No crazy shading effects with Photoshop going on here.
So I'm just putting all this up for opinion. Based off of these initial drawings, is it thought that I will be able to draw a suitable replacement? Also need suggestions on what to draw, how to draw it, etc. For example, reference image was 15-years old (according to the manga), is that not loli enough?--SeizureDog 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nothing I saw from the images is "not loli enough".  In fact, the current picture on the front page is just ugly and misleading. --Kgptzac 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks for putting in the effort. -Will Beback · † · 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, 'tis a nice image. You don't need to worry too much about it being "not loli enough" because it's a pretty vaguely defined genre. --tjstrf talk 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for putting in the effort to make us a new image.  Personally, I think the current image illustrating the page is a fine one.  I look forward to seeing your new image so we can discuss them together. Johntex\talk 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it cuter than the previous one, I believe that no one will complain ^_^ 222.124.242.141 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on image

message: An IP editor() has just added a link regarding an issue highly relevant to this article. However, the link involved is to a ComiPress article, which as best I can tell is pretty much a metablog. The ComiPress article gives its sources, keeps personal commentary to a minimum, and provides what is probably the only English langage coverage of the proposed law, but blogs in general are held to be bad sources. So, do we keep the ComiPress link, or link directly to the proposed law with the ComiPress link alongside it as an explanation or translation or something, or just link to the law without including the ComiPress link? --tjstrf talk 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External linking issue.

message: Apologies for intruding, just a quick query for my own information (and NOT, I should stress, any kind of attempt to revive a long-ago argument). It's plain from the archives that a picture caried on previous versions of this article caused a great deal of controversy. Just checking, is it the same image linked from this hentai manga page? - Anthony42 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the latter of the two. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query