That includes all lines regarding the generalization of the entire community. It is clear that the vandalism needs to be removed, along with the suggestive information and misinformation. Dustin ( talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) It should not be that much of a problem for the Wikipedia staff. I was suggesting talk page discussion as several editors were disagreeing/reverting/vandalizing in a short period of time. OneTrueLoki ( talk) 21:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I completely agree with you GushingGrannyFarts ( talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not the one who wrote the article. The sources you use are one-sided and slanderous, happy to make mountains out of molehills for the sake of sensational journalism. You've made an entire community out to be pedophilic criminals when pedophiles are only a portion of the userbase (and staunch anti-pedophiles make up another portion equal in size) and nothing illegal is allowed on the website. S.: It's not sockpuppetry, someone linked the page to 8chan and everyone there was (rightfully) insulted. Dustin ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Dustin V. If you see a problem with an article, try to discuss the issue and support your arguments with reasoning creating socks will only get you blocked.

cumguzzler ( talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Seems like a lack of sources for the article's inflammatory claims is the problem here Socialjusticewarrior88 ( talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Ĭonsidering how so many users are appearing suddenly today, I suspect sockpuppetry. Just stop.Ījsihbdibidhbhdkjsijsbihbs ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Uh, do you have a suggestion for the article? If so, provide reliable sources. Just because we have a few LEGAL boards made by other people, doesn't mean our entire f*%king website is about pedos. 8Chan has nothing to do with paedophilia in any way. This article is just all out f*cking generalizing.

4chan find archived thread