№16139053[Quote]
they really say this
№16139133[Quote]
They say this even doe i still use wipedia for research
№16139142[Quote]
>is that 4193242 gorillion pictures of loli ?? YAAAAAAAAS YES KEEP IT
>WTF IS THAT A BASEDJAK NO NONO DELETE WIP:NOTHERE
№16139236[Quote]
>>16139021 (OP)fringe sites have been hating wikipedia for years and i hope that hate continues into every era
№16139266[Quote]
>>16139176https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lolifunny thing is wiktionary puts loli on the "en:Pedophilia" category, xhey call themselves peedoughs
№16139278[Quote]
>>16139266wiktionary and wikipedia are different communities, in fact almost all wikimedia services are ran by different people which brings discrepancies such as that, it's best to treat them as such
№16139292[Quote]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soykipe-tan.pngDid you know the commons mod who deleted soykipetan speaks
(((hebrew)))?
№16139293[Quote]
also fun fact for any of you who didnt know this: one of the administrators of japanese wikipedia drew the first image in the lolicon article geg
№16139324[Quote]
>>16139314>My work on all language version of Wikipedia is mostly limited to replacing image filenames that have been renamed on CommonsGeg he literally does nothing
№16139346[Quote]
>>16139327>erm calling it pedophillia is offensivehow?
>lolisho (which that word is itself a pedophillic dog whistle btw) is not considered pedophilicexcept it literally is
>If you call me a pedophile for literally having pedophilia or a pedophilic disorder (a liking towards kids) I will report you…geg
№16139356[Quote]
>>16139336WHY ARE THEY STILL ALIVE THEN?
№16139357[Quote]
>>16139337It’s because on wikimedia commons, you cannot upload anyone else’s drawing, no matter the circumstances or context. only your work is allowed. Which means atleast one wikipedo had to draw lolicon as an example for the article
№16139403[Quote]
>>16139357holygeg what a fucking retarded policy
though even without the policy the 'peidakikes could've just not added a loli image to the article
№16139413[Quote]
>>16139403why does there even need to be an image? the article for child porn doesnt have any images so why does the lolicon article need to?
№16139432[Quote]
there's an actual 'p image on one of the articles (it's some tranny's album cover o algo)
№16139450[Quote]
>>16139416It’s locked nigga
№16139463[Quote]
#STARTWIKIPEDIAHATE
№16139468[Quote]
>>16139416>culture and media scholars responding to lolicon identify it as distinct from attraction to real young girlsnot any that are taken seriously
>lolicon artists are playing with symbols and working with tropesgeg xe did the thing, lolicon refers to a sexual attraction and has nothing to do with those themes in media
>which do not reflect or contribute to sexual pathology or crimestudies show it does contribute to sexual "pathology" because it itself IS sexual "pathology"
xe then goes on a rant about how fictional attractions of all form have no base in reality, which has been proven false an uncountable amount of times
№16139474[Quote]
Unrelated but should I learn Hebrew for the meme?
№16139482[Quote]
>>16139474maybe
only if you promise to troll jews
№16139506[Quote]
>>16139482What if become a grifter who trolls people in Israel but I actually work for Mossad to Falseflag goyim?
№16139524[Quote]
>>16139491also why is there so much templates
№16139529[Quote]
>>16139524solid page full of disclaimers geg
№16139536[Quote]
>>16139519that rule is just as enforced as rule 2 during kuz era GEG
№16139567[Quote]
>>16139413tmst, it never should've even been an option to begin with
№16139627[Quote]
SOMEONE WITH A WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNT ADD THIS TO THE
LOLI IMAGE ON THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
{{delete|The file is illegal in France as it is "fictional child pornography" (pornography since sexualized, child since it resembles a prepubescent (no secondary sexual features present) child. See [[Wikipedia:Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#France ]]}}