Talk:Loli Daemonette

From 1d4chan
(Redirected from Talk:Also Delete)

Half the images Fatum dumped in here don't belong in this article. Fail less, damnit! --23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Move them or shut up, smart guy. Fatum 04:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You gave them stupid and misleading names, though.
The horror, the horror! What are we gonna do????!!!!!! Fatum 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, mister Fatum, sir, does'nt the bit that goes something like "(...)the name given to a Slaaneshi daemonette." basically result in your delightfull pics of khornate, tzeentchite and nurgling lolis being slightly out of place? Just saying, is all... BladePHF 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my idea to make non-slaaneshi daemonettes, and starting a new article for those would by plain stupid, right? I can't even think of a reasonable name for it, so it goes like this: are these female daemons and thus daemonettes? Yes. Thus, the pics belong to Daemonette article. Period. After all, the article isn't named 'Slaaneshi daemonette', is it? Or alternatively we can just add "Canonically" to that "(...)the name given to a Slaaneshi daemonette." and be done with that. Fatum 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh. You DO realise this is the LOLI daemonette article, referring to a specific character, and we have an actual separate daemonette article that you should have put the pictures in? P.S. Learn what the hell loli means you guys I mean jeez, barely any of the pictures added recently qualify --23:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If by loli you mean pre-teen - yeah, sure, those are irrelevant. On the other hand, daemonettes are canonically based on post-teen woman proportions, unlike more teenage character appearance on these pics.
No he doesn't mean pre-teen, he means "Loli Daemonette", the name of a SPECIFIC SINGLE CHARACTER. Get a brain, moran. Someone needs to make a nurglette article
A character needs at least some back to be specific. While it doesn't, it's just a generalized category.

Moralfag vandalism[edit]

This page clearly has LOLI in the title and the promotions tag up top. Also, she's a fucking daemonette, what the hell did you expect to be on this page? If that's not enough for you, I'll put the more explicit porn in a collapsible section--Nubnuber (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Still loli NSFW, that was still the category agreed to be removed well over a year ago, and it's still the category you're going against several other users to bring back. Of course you'll do grandstanding when you think I was acting on my own to remove it, but when you're acting on your own to bring it back you have no problems with it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreements between users dont mean shit if they are still in the minority. None of you are mods. I will assume Loli NSFW is still allowed until and admin tells me otherwise.--Nubnuber (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Except we're not in the minority. -- Triacom (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes you are. Look at all of the people bitching at you in Root's page--Nubnuber (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
An anon, Agiletek and you disagree with me, Kracked Mynd, Crazy Cryptek and an anon. 3v4, you're in the minority. -- Triacom (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
If we got raided by furries and they all "agreed" to put anal vore on the Primarch pages, you would be saying, "Well more of them are in favor of anal vore than against it, so we should let them keep it up"--Nubnuber (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You make a good case, we should decide now what standards we should and shouldn't allow. I can find 6 quotes from different users agreeing to that, including you, and all 6 were against the idea of lewd lolis being on the wiki because of the precedent it could set. -- Triacom (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So, first time writing anything on here and as such forgive me if I have buggered anything up. I have been following some of these debates on 'loli' porn images and I have not seen a point raised yet; is the image depicting a child? Most law in regards to child images must be that. However, isn't this an imortal deamon, obviously drawn as a monster, that has existed forever and merely looks like a child, ergo not in breach of child protective law? I am neutral enough on the issue, the images are not my cup of tea, yet I am enjoying the debate.

...are you seriously using the "this is a 1000 year old dragon that just looks like a child" argument unironically? --58.162.223.230 09:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"Most law in regards to child images must be that." Wrong, most law says does not care about the fictional age of a child, and in at least one case I found a country decided that a character having breasts too small made them look sufficiently underage, even though it was claimed they were over 18. -- Triacom (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. There are two aspects to it both pertinent to the legality issue. 1st, for your example, the dragon. Most child protective law regarding rendered images is to stop copies of real child pornographic images. If it is a dragon, and as such obviously not a child, in most countries, it would not causr any issues. 2nd, sadly yeah, stating things are vetifiably above 18 and consent usually get around obscenity laws as evidenced by many porn sites, both live action and rendered. Happy to have this picked appart though.

>Most child protective law regarding rendered images is to stop copies of real child pornographic images. If it is a dragon, and as such obviously not a child, in most countries,
Lolis, by definition, are obviously children though.
>sadly yeah, stating things are vetifiably above 18 and consent usually get around obscenity laws as evidenced by many porn sites, both live action and rendered
Not in most countries (America is the exception here, not the rule) --58.162.223.230 12:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
To add onto the anon, it doesn't matter if something doesn't look like an obvious child, one case I found tried arguing that children "did not have cat ears or a tail", and the court didn't care. Another person was charged because they had art of underage Simpsons characters. -- Triacom (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

So this is a part of the argument I struggle with and you may be able to help me. Is Loli explicitly children or is it child like? I ask because, ignoring the fact that all of these characters are made up, many of the loli-x characters are not children. The necron and this daemonette are two reasonable examples of that as one would be ancinet and the other timeless. If loli is just childlike, back to your 1000 year old dragon, it would not be an issue. Certain porn stars have made whole careers from looking and acting child like while being within legality. If it is about children many of these disputed pictures are obviously none human, crab claws et al, and again would fail to be treated as such. an exampme a guy dressed as a pantomime horse having sex with some one would not trigger beastiality clauses in most of western europe.

"Is Loli explicitly children or is it child like?" It's child-like. The laws against them also target "child-like" characters. "Certain porn stars have made whole careers from looking and acting child like while being within legality." You can verify the age of a porn star, you cannot do the same with a drawing and any claim made by the creator that the character is much older than they appear could easily be a lie. Some countries don't care because the law is put in place to prevent normalizing that sort of thing, so in those cases the age really doesn't matter. -- Triacom (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

More Nubnuber Nonsense[edit]

Dude, why are you adding in dead Links for deleted images? I remember you said you'd stop when Root made his position clear, and I don't think you can be clearer than literally deleting the images. Was your claim that you'd stop a lie? -- Triacom (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Root was just deleting images that weren't being used by any pages. If you have been in private discussions with him where he told you his intention was to outlaw loli porn, please share those chat logs with me. If not, I will assume he has not yet made a judgment on the issue.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Where did Root tell you he was deleting images not used by any pages? If that was true, he'd have deleted them in the year and a half they weren't used anywhere. Also why are you adding dead links? -- Triacom (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Where did Root tell you he was outlawing loli porn?--Nubnuber (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said that, I said he made his position on the images clear, ie that he did not want them (also considering he deleted all those images at the same time I think his stance on the subject is obvious). Where did he tell you what he was doing, and why are you re-adding dead links? -- Triacom (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I have not spoken with Root. He also deleted many non-loli images that were not being used by any pages. From this I assumed his deletions of the the loli porn images were not a signal that he was oulawing loli. But none of that matters because I have not added any real images to the page, only dead links. Thus, even if Root did outlaw loli porn (which I am assuming he did not until he says so in words, not in actions), my edit is not in violation of that ban.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're assuming then how do you know what you say is true? You're stating it as if it's fact. Personally I fail to see how deleting something could be anything but "I do not want this." Now about this: "But none of that matters because I have not added any real images to the page, only dead links." Why are you adding dead links? -- Triacom (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
To serve as reminders of the images that were removed.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The reminder is the NSFW link. -- Triacom (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what I say is true, I am just assuming what I say is true. And I will continue to act under that assumption until you get Root to tell me otherwise to my stupid pedo rapist face.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
So you claim something you don't know for sure is a fact, then just assume that you're right? -- Triacom (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not claiming it is a fact. I simply haven't seen enough evidence to claim it is false, so I am operating under my base assumption that it is true. If you want to prove to me that my assumption is false, get Root to tell me so.--Nubnuber (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Root was just deleting images that weren't being used by any pages." Bullshit, you claimed this was a fact. -- Triacom (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, whatever. I don't know what you're trying to prove? In the end it doesn't matter what my beliefs or motivations are. I will not stop until Root tells me to.--Nubnuber (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm proving you lied when you claimed to know why Root was doing something. So are you just admitting outright that you'll be vandalizing the main page by adding dead images? -- Triacom (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
No.Im the one saving the page. You are the one vandalizing it.--Nubnuber (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How is adding dead images "saving the page"? -- Triacom (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I am commissioning artists to draw aged-up versions of the pictures that were removed--Nubnuber (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How is adding dead images "saving the page"? You're not answering the question. Also aged-up versions would belong on the Daemonette page, they obviously don't fit on this one which you can tell by its title. -- Triacom (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Triacom it's pretty self evident. I don't know how I can make it any clearer to you. In the event that you die and I outlive you, I will reupload the pictures.--Nubnuber (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How is adding dead images "saving the page"? -- Triacom (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Because the dead images will serve as reminders of the ones that got removed. That is how I am saving the page.--Nubnuber (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do you need a reminder on the page? Also why did you redirect the page? -- Triacom (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I redirected the page so that no one in europe or canada will be arrested for looking at it. I need a reminder on the page because I'm very forgetful.--Nubnuber (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"I redirected the page so that no one in europe or canada will be arrested for looking at it." That only happens if there's underage NSFW content on it, which currently there is not. The name also has no effect on the content, however you already know this, so why did you do it? "I need a reminder on the page because I'm very forgetful." How does it serve as a reminder when the images are gone? -- Triacom (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Because now she's not a loli, she's just a short flatchested girl of indeterminate age. So now no one in Canada or Europe will be arrested for looking at it.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
People in Europe and Canada are not arrested for loli art, they're arrested for NSFW loli art. Changing the name doesn't matter, and in one of the cases I cited the person arrested tried claiming the characters only looked young, and it didn't work. Additionally many countries laws account for these claims, that a character only looks young, and they don't care. The UK is a prime example of this. If you only changed it because of the name then that doesn't affect anything and is pointless, especially from somebody who claimed they wanted to preserve /tg/ history. How are you preserving /tg/ history by removing the name? -- Triacom (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't care about anything anymore, Tri. Please just let me have this.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Let you have what? Adding dead images to a page, images that the admin deleted no less? No, I let you have the NSFW art link, you adding dead images the admin removed is clear disregard on your part, and obvious vandalism since it boosts up the gallery while adding no content. -- Triacom (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Let you have what? Adding dead images to a page,' Yes, please let me have adding dead images to a page.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Why? -- Triacom (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Because I'll stop if you do.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You'll stop vandalizing the page if I let you vandalize the page? -- Triacom (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Do we have a deal?--Nubnuber (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Why would anyone be happy with vandalism on the main page? -- Triacom (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Do we have a deal or not? Yes or no?--Nubnuber (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Answer the question first. -- Triacom (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Literally nobody gives a shit about this page except you and me.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And Kracked Mynd, Crazy Cryptek, the anon, as well as Root since he deleted the images... -- Triacom (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You are flagrantly lying. You are the only one who keeps replying to me. Do we have a deal? Yes or no? If you respond with anything other than yes or no, I will stop replying to you in this talk page and start edit warring again.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Since you refuse to give a good reason to allow vandalism on the main page, the answer is no. Also because you admit here that it is only vandalism, if you choose to keep putting up dead images on the main page and refuse to talk on the talk page I'll be forced to ask Root to step in again. Also funny how you made a new page then claimed I'm the only one replying isn't it? It's like those people on the other pages never existed to you. -- Triacom (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the above retard[edit]

Should Loli pages automatically get a disgusting mark, like the Chris-Chan page? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Given who they seem to attract (see above) I'd say yes. -- Triacom (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Seconded as well. --58.162.223.230 03:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Aye sir, I'll get to work on that gentleman --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I marked all the pages I could find. If you fellas can think of any let me know --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Triacom (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete this page (or at least the images) and ban Nubnuber[edit]

This page is child porn (or at least the images are). And Nubnuber is pedophile for posting said images. Seriously, you don't see me posting child porn. -- HussarZwei (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Hussar, no one fucking cares.
There is no loli porn on this page. All of it has been removed.

Remove image 25[edit]

I think file:Loli-daemonette(25).png should be taken down. While the picture technically is not pornographic I think it is a little bit too sexual.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 00:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

She's a daemonette for crying out loud. What did you expect?--Nubnuber (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)