This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The loli images are back, now on Commons. Any thoughts on how to handle this? They were deleted on our side because they were signed "Kasuga", but were obviously not done or uploaded by Kasuga. -- Ned Scott09:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I say we keep them and be thankful, Lolicon has needed a good illustration for ages. If they need some sort of detailed explanation as to why they have weird source info, so be it. (We can't really blame outsiders for not understanding our image policies straight off.) --tjstrftalk09:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hate giving Wikipe-tan this kind of image (the blatant whore kind), it a lot better than the previous lolicon image (no offense to the author of that image, but.. eh). If we can get the source and licensing info clarified then there shouldn't be any problems. -- Ned Scott22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the uploader is fairly clearly a throw away account for fairly obvious reasons.Geni22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Under the GFDL people are free to chose to be credited under whatever name they like.Geni00:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong is getting the previous image license clarified. There is somehow a deletion debate going on at the Commons (which started off quite strangely). Anyways, now we have a confirmed author, source and license, I am dropping any issues I have for the image. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that they got rid of that picture of teenage Wikipe tan in a swimsuit, it was creepy. Anubiz11:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, most of the other pics on this page are far more 'loli' than the deleted pic, nor do I see how it was creepy at all. *shrug* ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
acutaly it isn't that simple and untill anouther court case turns up the situation is a bit uncertian. It would probably be illegal to publish in the UK although for the time being ownership is probably legal.Geni00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's on the Wikipe-tan page, and on the Lolicon page. There's a deletion discussion here: [1]. If I understand correctly, they are saying they only delete for copyright violations so arguments about the content aren't legit??? -Jmh12301:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because it is (or can be) used in other Wikipedias as well and Commons isn't the place to sort out legal issues between the different Wikipedias? Are any relevant trademarks (Wikipedia stuff) already released via the Commons as well? -Jmh12308:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, someone took away the 'older' wording I used. That's at least two people who seem to nolt be able to tell that yes, the girl in that pic is clearly older than than the girl in most of the rest of the pictures. Or am I the blind one? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I'd say 8. The artist who drew it was asked to make her obviously pre-adolescent, and the folks at Lolicon were very happy with the result. -Jmh12316:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Most 13 year olds are fully mature physically. This one shows no signs of puberty at all. The confident young woman who is pictured with the dread looking hair and the black suit is not labeled as older. Even the bikini-wearing sex service gal is not labelled as older. The intention of the Loli picture was for her to look like a young child. She does. Now her pose is older--yes--that is exactly the point--a very young girl acting precociously sexual. -Jmh12316:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the sexy Wikipe-tan seem to be older (14-16) than normal Wikipe-tan (10-12), though younger than adult Wikipe-tan (17-25). L-Zwei18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I say it's a difference in drawing style. Let's not argue about one single adjective. _dk21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My own thoughts, it seems several users are misunderstanding the legal issues of displaying the image (as in, none), but another issue, the concerns about the association of Wikipe-tan's (and Wikipedia's) image to this, might be something worth discussing. Thought it might be a good idea to start the discussion here, since.. it's pretty crazy over on AN/I right now, and the Commons deletion debate was closed early. -- Ned Scott00:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
.....*shakes head in disbelief*.....How about asking Kasuga for an ambiguous image for the article? _dk02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Japan article uses a different Wikipe-tan image drawn by Kasuga (Library of Babel) which probably would've have gone unnoticed, but now's not a good time to be suggesting a different Wikipe-tan for Lolicon, I don't think. At any rate, the discussion of what image to use for the Lolicon article is going on at Lolicon Talk. However, Ned Scott brings up an interesting topic of potential problems with the use of Wikipe-tan images in general.-Jmh12303:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should take the averge hip and breast sizes of girls older than the lolicon age, and see if the picture roughly meets or exceeds that average? — Deckiller03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've spent many a day on 4chan, 7chan, etc. I know what lolicon is, and that image is lolicon and I'm damn sure of it. The question at hand is whether we chould have such an image. This has mushroomed into a huge ordeal at WP:ANI, with an administrator going barzark. - 2-1615:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The admin did not go bezerk--just said something strongly worded, which someone else prematurely took to the ANI. So don't worry about that. The debate is just that--this is a contentious issue, yes. Clearly people feel strongly about this image, whether Wikipe-tan should be used in this way or not. -Jmh12317:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You act as if it's some horrid thing for there to be such. It's not. The argument about "sexualizing kids" is irrelevent, as it's an image of her /older/, and it's only somewhat suggestive. The argument is almost aking to saying there should never EVER be a sexualalization of ANYONE because everyone was a kid once. Now, I do agree against putting on actual H-pics here (and they already exist, mind you), but seriously people seem to be looking at this pic as if it's some horrid crime against nature. It's not. It's just a little suggestive pic, that shouldn't be garnering even close to this much hostility. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
On 20078 June, Wikipe-tan was recognized by Jimbo Wales as a community mascot. [2]
(Loliwikipetan was a lolicon version of wikipetan sensored in wikipedia)
Now if wikipetan is really a community mascot then why don't you add it here.If it's not a community mascot,then why loliwikipetan was deleted, we tolerate the other one with the lollipop in her mouth.--81.245.58.10823:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We have images of Wikipe-tan all over the page, so your first question makes no sense. The LoliWikipe-tan was deleted because as a community mascot the lolicon image of her is not appropriate, and that is why she will not be added here. The second image, the one with the lollipop, is not Wikipe-tan, and therefore not an issue in relationship to Wikipe-tan. -Jmh12323:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant add here the fact that she is the community mascot.She is the mascot of that and that wikiproject,but that's it.Now if she really isn't the community mascot then the deletion of loliwikipetan makes no sense.--81.245.58.10823:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You would be better served taking that up with Jimmy Wales--however, it makes perfect sense to me. Although she is not the official mascot, she still represents Wikipedia and she wears Wikipedia symbols. I agree with Wales, but he's the one who made the final decision, and he da man, so it will serve no purpose to argue about it here. This has been argued about all over Wikipedia for days. I for one am sick of the whole thing. You don't make kiddie porn out of the mascot, unofficial or not. It's just not going to happen. Arguing with about this any longer will serve no purpose. Please, just let this go. -Jmh12300:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact you have a slightly entising image "kiddy porn" shows a real problem with the general mentality of a lot of people. It's pretty silly. When I first saw the image I thought nothing of it and never dreamed people would be so up in arms about it, much less call it something it isn't even close to (it doesn't even look lolicon to me, nor could it possibly at ALL be called 'porn' any more than a lingerie catalog). But whatever, I do agree with protecting the page because it's all getting rediculous. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
They don't hang Bill Gates porn in the corporate headquarters of Microsoft. 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Bill Gates isn't moè. Nor was the image porn, but that probably doesn't matter seeing as it was actually removed due to various users opinion of lolicon in general rather than any actual justifiable reason. I mean, cmon, "kiddy porn"? Is Wikipedia really that unable to be NPOV about lolicon? You guys gonna pull a Livejournal on all us anonymous users out there that actually use this site as a reference? 71.142.244.22613:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan as a model
I think that it might perhaps be a good idea to use Wikipe-tan as a model (as in, give her a career in modeling). She could be used to illustrate clothing articles.
Even if she is not to model nude, might she still be suitable for lingerie modeling (such as for the camiknickers article)?
That's not a terrible idea, but some people might object to the use of an anime character instead of a real person modelling for clothing articles. In fact, many people might object in this fashion (no pun intended). It could work having her (the grown up/teenage version of her, not the child version) in articles modelling alongside human models. And yes, a male counterpart to Wikipe-tan might also be useful for this purpose.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If someone's going to take the time to make a drawing of some dude wearing a specific article of clothing, I think it's more appropriate to just take a PD or FL shot of some dude actually wearing it. A real picture is preferable in all cases to a drawing, even though the drawing takes longer, which is unfair but that's life. I think the drawings should be relegated to illustrations where a real picture is unfeasable or wouldn't work (anime, video game, etc.) - 2-1616:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Both meanings are possible in German (open for all sorts of puns and confuisions) but most of the time it means it's G-rated. In this case jugendfrei is just the title of the page targeting youth and young adults. --32X01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please add the above information to "Use outside Wikipedia" section, also request a better censoring of the Matthias Horx image. --129.241.126.12111:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On June 152007 the German newspaper Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten (circulation ca. 31 000) used Wikipe-tan on the front page as well as next to an article on the variety of manga.
Having not seen the article, and not being able to read German even if I did, my speculation would be that the editors wanted a manga-style image, but did not want to hassle with getting permission for some normal character. So they chose Wikipe-tan since she's GFDL, so they could use her as a representative of the style without going through copyright permission hassles. Just speculation, but if she and/or the project are not directly mentioned in the article, this would be my guess at the logic of her appearance there. - TexasAndroid14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know. Even if you can't read German, the work Wikipedia should be recognizable, and if it's there, a translation could be pursued. I hope someone can find out. Whoever obtained the scan should be able to provide text of the article. -Jmh12318:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. Hadn't even though of that. But she's also under a Creative Commons license, or at least that specific image of her is, so would that allow for their use of her without a complicated license inclusion? I'm not as familiar with the nuances of the different licenses. - TexasAndroid19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That would probably depend on which flavor of CC she's licensed under. If she's CC-NC, then they can't use her, but if she's less restrictive, then they might have a claim. Corvus cornix20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA. I don't see any mention of CC or credit for the author so there would appear to be copyright issues.Geni00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Some information: I don't really know why Wikipe-tan has made it to the front page of DNN, since the article isn't very long. The article is (or assumes to be) from a young German adult living since 9 months in Japan. He wrote about mangas being virtually everywhere and in every kind of topic. (Really, not that interesting or new at all.) The article takes 4 of 6 columns in width and about 75% in height of the page; 1 column text, 3 columns Wikipe-tan. That makes an image of about 34×18 sqarecentimeters (~ 13.4"×7.1"). I couldn't find the time today to make a good scan, since it's larger than A4 paper size. This Wikipe-tan is not only licensed under GFDL but also under CC-by-SA. The by part was respected, the rest is more or less not done (maybe because there's still no simple text about "how to use this image in other media"). I could do the scan next week and upload it to commons (with the argument "image is CC-by-SA, so must be the article") or upload it to some random image host. And maybe I'll do a photo, since blurry text shouldn't be a problem at all.
Time for my question: I've uploaded the image this morning and just a few hours later it was already used. How have you found it? --32X01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
On the IFD, Howchenge stated that the best way to go would be to discuss the image here, and if consensus is that it belongs on the page it should remain, whereas if consensus is that it doesn't belong here then it should be removed from the gallery and then listed on IFD as an orphan. So let's discuss it.
As I listed the image for deletion, I think it's already obvious how I feel about it. I think it's an offensive. Conservape-tan is dressed in a plain dress, wearing a cross and carrying a Bible, with American flag puzzle pieces in her hair. She looks angry and is pointing as if judging. This portrays offensive stereotypes: that Christians are judgmental, that Americans are Christian and conservative, that conservatives are all judgmental Bible-thumpers. Why don't we put her in a burqa and put Taliban flag puzzle pieces in her hair? Then she'd be even more conservative. I'm an American liberal atheist, and I'm bothered by all of this. TomTheHand21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
...which is why its removal from the gallery is being discussed on this page. You think he doesn't know that already. If it's an orphan, then it can be removed. Tuxide00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is offensive and cannot be used to make a better encyclopedia. Being unencyclopedic is a valid criteria for deletion. TomTheHand00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, this isn't Conservapedia or Uncyclopedia. We don't have images of Uncyclo-tan on here. We're getting a lot of really crappy images on here anyways. Tuxide00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this has already been discussed a little here, on the talk page of Ned Scott, who originally removed the image. The reason I have an issue with Conservape-tan and not with, say, Afro-tan or Burqa Wikipe-tan is that Conservape-tan portrays a negative stereotype.
Afro-tan is simply a black Wikipe-tan with an afro. I would have a problem with Afro-tan if she were named as or otherwise implied to be a moe anthropomorphization of black people, but she's just a Wikipe-tan of a different race and hairstyle. I feel a little iffy about burqa Wikipe-tan, but similarly, she's just Wikipe in a burqa. She's not called Muslim-tan, she isn't meant as a anthropomorphization of Islam, and there's nothing negative in her portrayal. Give her a dynamite belt and we've got issues.
I have no problem with Wikipe-tan in general because first, she's an anthropomorphization of an object (Wikipedia) and not a group of people (conservatives), and second, she is portrayed positively: cute, hard-working, a little clumsy. Not white, Christian, American, and judgmental. TomTheHand00:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, even if she was portrayed as a group of people, one would hope it would generally be positive or neutral. Afro-tan, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be negative. So the negative portrayal is what does it for me. You could make a Wikipe-tan nun and I probably wouldn't have a second thought about it.
With the lolicon image deletion, maintaining a good image for Wikipe-tan does seem to be in the interest of the community. It's generally safe to say that we don't want Wikipe-tan to be a sexually active 12 year old girl, or a nazi, or a pissed off religious zealot who's getting ready to backhand some child for saying "penis". Wikipe-tan can be sad, even angry, but she shouldn't really cause readers to be angry (within reason, since some people will find very silly reasons to get angry).
And it's not really that we're protecting her image, or saying "zomg, you can't do that!". It's just.. this image, for whatever reason, we don't want it on Wikipedia. It's not like I completely dislike the image (the image has been saved in my own copy of Wikipe-tan images), it's just.. doesn't seem like a good idea for it to be here. -- Ned Scott02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm removing the image. If it's not posted on the Wikipe-tan page, I don't really care about the IFD; if it were just something the creator had on his user page I never would have started an IFD. TomTheHand15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the policy on creating new versions of Wikipe-tan for use on Wikipedia? An image for Portal:Evangelion has been requested, and I had thought that an image of Wikipe-tan wearing A10 clips would be good, but I have no idea who to ask about how to go about doing this. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea for the Portal page in and of itself. What I was thinking about would be for the Portal link in the Eva-related articles, but if there's a pic of Wikipe-tan in a plug suit as well as with the clips, then a head shot of her could be the image in the link. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell: You're free to use any of the images of Wikipe-tan that are on Wikipedia in just about any way you want. In return, you credit and link back to the images you used, and allow anyone else to use your image in the same way. [3] There are two licenses you can choose from, CC and GFDL, or you can choose both (which means that people wishing to reuse the image can also choose, for whatever technical reasons that may apply). Since all you have to do is link to any past images used, there's really no extra work needed to use both CC and GFDL. I'm sure there's a guideline or something around here that explains it in more detail.. I'll see what I can find unless someone else beats me to it. -- Ned Scott05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Since he was the original artist, I think I'll do that...I certainly don't have the artistic chops for the task. Thanks, everyone. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The official policy is the complete absence of policy. Wikipe-tan is unofficial. Go nuts so long as you stay within copyright. Of course the image should have a purpose... -- Catchi? 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Since all images of wikipe-tan are either in commons or should be in commons. Can we make it that this page displays no gallery (and the gallery be on commons)? -- Catchi? 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If and when Kasuga draws the plug suited Wikipe-tan image that I requested, that image will have to appear as fair use because of the copyright issues with the NGE-related imagery, and thus can't be placed in Commons space. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If Kasuga hasn't started drawing that image yet, I would suggest for him to stop, since there is no way we can host that kind of image on Wikipedia due to it being fair use. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why don't you go and tell him? (I myself don't know how to phrase such a suggestion.) _dk08:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
He does have a DeviantArt page, so he could always upload there, but I believe at least a pause now would at least save Kasuga the effort and us from a deletion debate to deal with. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's attention in this matter. I've posted a reply on Kasuga's talk page regarding the issue with my suggestion, will my alternate suggestion be permissible? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest edits
I've reverted the removal of the image of Wikipe-tan by the art snob IP. The image in question IS extremely crude, but I don't believe that that in and of itself is a valid criteria for removal of the image; otherwise, I think it would've been removed already. Anyone else? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "If this edit was supposed to be made, it would've been made already" is a valid criteria for reversion ;-) Seriously though, I would support removal of the image, but I don't feel strongly about it. TomTheHand20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The IP has a point -- it really DOESN'T look anything like WP-tan. It could be pretty much any girl, crude drawing or not. I'm not going to take a stance one way or the other, other than to say I would support removal as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am personally with the IP. I don't see a reason for that image to be there, it is a very crude Ms paint drawing, doesn't look a thing like the subject in question, and isn't Wikipe-tan a maid full stop anyways? Karrmann21:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's my assumption that the gray thingies on her head are supposed to be the puzzle pieces on her hair ties. It's not a huge issue to me as to whether or not the image stays; I just tend to not take IP edits seriously, especially when they come off with a snarky attitude as these did. Now that actual members have spoken their piece, since the majority opinion appears to be to cull it, I'm good. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Fact that our idol wear maid costume for most of time made the removed image somewhat pointless, IMO. L-Zwei05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Quote or News?
The one we have here listed as Quote-tan is listed as Wikinews-tan over on Commons. I don't know which is the correct one so anyone who does, should fix the wrong one. Scaper822:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved the page there and posted this on the talk page "Someone mentioned this on en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan, I moved the page to Wikiquote-tan assuming the title for the image was a minor mistake, but I don't feel strongly about it. I was actually thinking about moving it right back, since Wikinews-tan might be a better fit.."
Wah...right. While she's truly outstanding in English Uncyclopedia, the Japaneese offer some good design as well. Still, shall weput a link here? Especially since some notable reference to Wikipe-tan in those images. L-Zwei07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, although I have to admit that when I checked my watchlist this morning and saw an entry for an "adult" Wikipe-tan, the first thing that went through my head was "Oh great, as if the lolicon one wasn't enough..." Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, college-aged Wikipe-tan is still adult, right - past childhood? I actually think the post-pubescent, grown-up Wikipe-tan is useful for a number of purposes that the child Wikipe-tan isn't.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h12:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan image considered for delisting from Featured Picture
Full resolution of the image shows the problems. If granted permission by the author, a vector of Wikipe-tan can easily put down any quality issues. Fox81605:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that the closer was clearly not a neutral party. It is not like Kasuga can't make a vector version, hence not "irrepairable". _dk06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
See my talk page. He used the wrong wording, a purposely strong connotation to make the case even though the problem is rather very simple. If anyone can contact Kasuga for a full vector version then we can reinstate Wikipe-tan through another renom. Otherwise if they can't then I could possibly make one up when I have time. Fox81620:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the closing. MER-C's response in the closure, and his response to Fox, have me very concerned about his judgement. An image that has been re-printed in print magazines being delisted for quality? Nitpicking at the aliasing issue clearly misses the point of the featured picture criteria (which has no direct comment on this kind of situation, other than the image must be of a high quality that is appropriate for re-printing) -- Ned Scott20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Afro Wikipe-tan
I feel that the afro wikipe-tans should be removed as they seem to be some kind of joke from 4chan. They are a reference to the racist 'pool's closed' (NSFW) meme (note the current wikichan logo).
Additionally, see 'afro controversy' in this wikichan article (NSFW):
An art piece featuring Wikipe-tan wearing a suit, shades, and an afro was added to the gallery, with a caucasian and alternate black version. Fortunately, no one was keen enough to guess its meaning or delete it, and it remains there to this day. An edited version is seen on the WikiChan logo as a symbol of triumph. Really, you can add whatever the hell you want to the gallery. Go ahead.
From reading some of their articles it appears that the wikichan website was meant to be a Uncyclopedia and focus on making a mockery of certain subjects though entirely remaining on focus of memes and the likes. However, I do have to agree that the images are of poor taste and should be taken out. As creative as the originator wanted to be with the image, it shouldn't be in Wikipe-tan's gallery. I'll remove the one that causes the most stir and leave the other so it can be debated on as I see that it can be somewhat salvaged. Fox81616:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I reversed your removal as there is no reason for removing the image. Anyone can nitpick at anything and take offense at it. However, they have to take offense. Neither of these images is intrinsically offensive. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that we couldn't care less about a controversy on another site. We have over 2.5 million articles to care about here, so why would we bother to take the time to address the concerns of another site? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's basically what I stated regarding the credibility of the Wikichan website. As for my reason of removing it, it was on the basis of poor taste which I stated, and you should take into consideration that I said that the alternate could be salvaged, meaning for sake of creativity and incorporating elements outside of the general scope (e.g. anime and mainly japanese related themes). However the instance of the other image that I removed I consider, not offensive, but crossing the line to the point of being offensive. Better to take care of it now then wait for a possible response. As such it would be best to remove just that one while keeping the other. Fox81604:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just it: it hasn't been determined that it's best to remove the image. The only people who seem to have a problem with either of the "Afro" images are you and the anon IP posting here. As I already stated, the images themselves are not intrinsically offensive (unlike the previously removed lolicon image, which was just in plain bad taste in addition to being offensive), so I see no reason why either should be removed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Original poster here. I guess the images themselves don't really create any harm as long as they aren't breaking any rules, even if they are a bit strange. For those who do not know, Wikichan is the official wiki of the *chans, which are a collection of imageboards famous for their 'raids' on websites. See 4chan for a list of things that one such imageboard have been responsible for. Being associated with these people may be a bad idea, which is why I suggest the removal of the references to their 'pool's closed' meme. Additionally, allowing these images to stay up may lead to further 'contributions' by 4chan when they realize what they can get away with. Finally, I don't really see how a dark-skinned version of wikipe-tan with an afro belongs in the gallery, but hey, I respect people's different tastes. Ultimately, I respect the majority decision. -- 219.90.222.8605:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Rather late response. If you're going by majority decision, then it's 2-1 in favor of ousting the image. Since there have been no other responses between the last response and this one then for now I'll leave it be. In the future, can all of you please post in chronological order. Fox816 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not a vote. If needs be, we can invite others to come here and express an opinion. Not sure what you mean by "please post in chronological order" as the comments in this section are in chronological order. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you observe your last post prior to the one above you posted below mine instead of the IP which doesn't follow the succession of responses, hence no chrono. Not a big deal but caused a slight confusion. Fox816 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afro-wikipe-tan2.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afro-wikipe-tan3.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Transparent_Afro-wikipe-tan.png){kind=link}