Talk:Literotica

Adult Content 2

I re-added the warning on the link to the Literotica website. This website is only suitable for adults, as is clearly stated on the site's main page.

Rewrite

I've just taken a few minutes to edit this article, removing a fair amount of POV, eliminating some comments and tightening it up. I'm amazed that an article can go from creation to suddenly being a battleground this quickly. The semiprotection will hopefully help, but still - let's keep it encyclopedic, folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you!

Adult Content

This link to the Literotica website has been updated with a warning. This website is only suitable for adults. Genius12 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. I've added it again David in DC 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted it, again. I've added it again with plea for attempt at consensus on this page before there's any further editing.

I firmly believe the WP:EL must go if there's no warning. David in DC (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. I believe this disclaimer fits into the narrow exceptions outlined in the WP:NDA guideline. Without a disclaimer, I believe WP:EL requires deletion of the link. Please discuss here before deleting again David in DC (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Which exception are you talking about? The only exceptions mentioned in WP:NDA are technical error disclaimers and temporal templates, neither of which an "adult content" disclaimer falls under. Second, the particular reason disclaimers aren't needed is because Wikipedia already has them at the bottom of every page, and the content disclaimer already covers Wikipedia containing offensive material. If a link offends someone, that's the linked site's problem, and Wikipedia has nothing to do with that. Third, the user should already be familiar with the link from the article, making further description superfluous. Fourth, saying something is "adult content" or "explicit" is not neutral, as there is no factual scale for explicitness. Fifth, as something I'll just throw in to show yet another way it is violating standards, making it all bold like this article has goes against WP:MOSBOLD. I could go on. There's plenty of reasons for why such disclaimers should be avoided. 69.234.130.169 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion attempt

I was looking at this originally as a vanity/spam page, and got my signals crossed in looking up things like the site's Alexa ranking. It's MUCH higher than I thought it was, at 611. Plus the 800,000 or so links on Google or if you use "link:" on AltaVista you still get 35,000. So I was utterly in error for suggesting this article should get deleted, when it really should just be expanded and properly referenced. My apologies to anyone who's spent time working on it. --JohnDBuell 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But 8 months later, no one's done anything to improve it. As it stands, it's not much more than an advertisement for the site. It's a shame, because it is an unbelievably popular, and thus notable, site. But if no one's going to do the work to turn it into an encyclopedia article, it probably oughtta be nominated for deletion. David in DC 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Slightly less orphaned

I have added it as a link to amateur pornography as some of the sites for sex stories. Pornhistorian (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

LitChat

The comment

After a long period of instability, including frequent wholesale 
"boots" of logged-in users, this client is now dependable

really doesn't reflect the reality of LitChat. Mass "boots" are still very common. I'm going to remove that section. I know this is close to WP:OR, but so is the statement I'm removing.

"The page you are looking for is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later."

Less than 20, 15, likely several minutes ago. 108.161.114.218 (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

More like the Bulletin Board is down. It's been a little glitchy.108.161.114.218 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)