Talk:Sakura Kinomoto/offtopic

Please remove the following
I don't feel that it's appropriate for you to have added the following on the Sakura pages:

'''Sakura and Tomoyo are a very popular couple in certain fanfiction and lolicon fandom. However there are very few (if any) cosplayers of the two together, mostly because Tomoyo does not have a very unique wardrobe and that their romantic relationship is not exactly canon.'''

Among otaku in Japan, Sakura is seen as one of the most recognizable moé characters.

I don't know (nor do I want to know) why you would know this, but it's not appropriate in a page like this. Please remove it.Duhman0008 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you say is inappropriate about it? ...Though since you bring it up, I suppose there's an issue with verifiability for inclusion in the article (which would, yes, lead to its editing or deleting), but I wouldn't say those statements are "inappropriate." --Crisu 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First reason, you do not have any source posted and even if you did have sources, you wouldn't be able to post them since they would be illegal to do so. Second, think of the children coming here and reading about their favorite TV shows. I don't like Dub Anime personally, but face the fact, there's more children watching dubs than subs.Duhman0008 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can prove that they *aren't* cosplayed together, but it should not be hard to dig up enough hentai doujin to prove the first point. Shiroi Hane 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. And these paragraphs are pretty tame for what could be found elsewhere on Wikipedia.  This article is about the original Japanese series, so dub-only viewers are just going to be exposed to a lot more than what they thought they knew.  I've been considering trying to put together a standalone article for just Cardcaptors, but I don't have enough information to pull it off yet.  But whether or not there are more dub viewers is irrelevant to the content of this article.  --Crisu 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to be nice and ask, but it would seem that you do not agree with something that is morally wrong, so I have removed two lines which link to the Lolicon and Moé pages of Wikipedia. Perhaps you enjoy this sort of thing, but most Anime fans find it distasteful. Please keep your preferences (especially distasteful ones) to yourself. Thank you Duhman0008 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I still feel these is scope for a seperate Cardcaptors article, and possibly also Sakura Avalon etc. if someone intimate with the dub is willing to write them. Shiroi Hane 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Duhman0008, what you are doing is censoring. STOP. Wikipedia is not edited for children! -- Ned Scott 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not above the law. Anything that is no appropriate for children should be restricted with password and/or age verification. If Wikipedia as a problem with that, then I’ll just have to alert to proper authorities and it will turn into another one of those scandals regarding sexual content like in video games. I will remove to inappropriate content on Sakura's page once again. Face it, if the author put that content on the page in the first place, it's that he must know and enjoy this sort of stuff, which means that it's also a preference, preferences has no place on a Wiki page anyway.Duhman0008 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two distinct issues that must be addressed here:
 * It is illegal to add information about lolicon and moe characters, and
 * The assertions are not sourced.
 * On point one Duhman0008 is completely incorrect, it is not illegal to add such assertions into the article and, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia is not primarily for children (people have been saying it is not for children, well, sorry, that's just plain incorrect. Wikipedia is for all audiences). On the second point, however, Duhman0008 has a very valid point. Source the material or remove it please, as per WP:NOR. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no law like that... Man, you really need to check out the Lolicon article and it's talk page for a culture shock. You are ill-informed of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as US law. I suggest looking at Help:Contents.  -- Ned Scott 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem, Ned, is that any kid that doesn't know about this sort of stuff will learn about it when reading it on this page. After that, this kid will be on Google looking for that crap using Wikipedia's reference words. Wikipedia basically became the map for this sort of stuff. You do realize now that I will now report it to the proper authorities and that you won't be able to edit the consequences like keep doing on the page, right?Duhman0008 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, because this is perfectly legal. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I heard a poll today that over 60% of parents believe their children look at porn online, and I would imagine there would be an awful lot more doing it and their parents are unaware. It seems pointless trying to 'protect' them from something as silly as Wikipedia articles when they are looking at worse. Besides, if they are following Wikilinks, they could probably go Sakura Kinomoto->anime->lolicon, so it is not like you are going to make any difference here.  Besides, as has been said before, there is nothing illegal being done here, nor is there anything wrong either.  You know, I recall the hardcopy Encyclopedia Brittanica collection I had as a child contained images of nutity.  Biology is corrupting our children! Elric of Grans 05:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, people like Jack Thompson would probably love to take a crack at you. Even if he wouldn't win, this would probably make parents aware of Wikipedia, make them complain and probably add this site to their net nanny program. Anyway, for the moment, these things should be removed because they require a source and if I recall what people have told me about Wikipedia, you cannot post something like that without a source. However, being the fact that a source cannot be posted because it would lead to porn, then the content cannot be added period. Duhman0008 11:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that just about every fansite, review, and so on that is linked in these articles source the info. All that's left is to put in a tag and word the citation correctly. It's extremely obvious of how true these statements are. -- Ned Scott 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That’s strange, according to the mods hanging on the Mario page, fan websites (or GameSpot for that matter) are not good sources:


 * Wiki Mario


 * The way I see it, this is either a conspiracy (Criticism of Wikipedia)or the people from Wikipedia need to get their story straight. Although I am not sure since it’s been many years, I do recall watching the news on a US channel and they were prosecuting a man for pedophilia. I recall hearing something about pedophilia art also being illegal. So posting any link on Wikipedia that could lead to a page with links to pedophilia art could get you in major doodoo. Duhman0008 22:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need to be nice to this asshole anymore. If you don't wish to discuss something about this article, rather, some larger issue of morals or anti-wikipedia whatever, do it on another talk page. THIS is not the place for your comments, and they are no longer welcome here. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're name calling now are we? Guess this means that I've cornered you. You might want to read this: Abuse of Power. Duhman0008 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)