User talk:PercherTM

Welcome!

Hello, PercherTM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but again i see why no professor considers wikipedia a credible source. new account or not please check what i edited. the usage of the term is completely wrong and that is not personal research. its a accepted fact within the community. which i am also a part of so i know what i am speaking of. thank you but if you need to be an old user to be considered credible then ill have to agree with my professor next time he tells me off for using wikepedia in my projects PercherTM (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which community are you referring to? But no, you don't have to be an old user, just need to work on understanding how Wikipedia operates. Claims must be verifiable with reliable sources. Secondary sources are preferred as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting from my user talk page to here. Let's keep the conversation in one location.

https://www.academia.edu/28503064/AN_OVERVIEW_ON_THE_JAPANESE_PECULIAR_SUBCULTURE_OF_LOLITA_WITH_A_FOCUS_ON_GOTH-LOLI https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=261915&pollresults=1

The first is a source, the second is a debate. its not hard to google, the usage on the wikipedia was heavily insisting that the term is only used to refer to the novel. it is not. none of the weebs including myself even know of the novel and i dont we need to know of the novel to use the term as suggested by the other user as again that is not what we refer to when we say loli i simply insisted on that point and that a loli does not need to be underaged. evidenced by the term "legal loli" currently popular as a genre. That is what i have been saying and that is also pretty accurate with any research. The fact that he disregarded it as a meme and simply chose to insult me simply because i am a new user and you joined in on him speaks volumes. The term is and i will repeat is not used to refer to the novel since it has been popularized. fix it yourself if you wont allow others to or ask anyone if they even know of the novel you credit the usage of the word to. after all if it refers to it then people should surely know if it — Preceding unsigned comment added by PercherTM (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term lolita and loli have many uses, including the fashion movement in Japan which I think you are referring to. See Lolita fashion for that specific usage. But the term is not limited to that. There's lolicon, Lolita the novel, etc. The article must discuss all those uses. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not referring to the fashion, i am referring to what classifies as a "loli" it is simply a petite woman. nothing about age and especially no strict requirement for it the loli to be underaged or out of some novel the read the article. it only discusses the novel or implies that lolis are basically pedo baits. i tried changing that to add that age is not a requirement and that modern day usage does not link to the novel. please go check the page since you did not considering the word "must" PercherTM (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit ([1]), you removed the term loli and the section on fashion... you didn't add anything about age. Also, the article already mentions the "appearance" or being underage. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked all the edits. the first edit i made added the clause about the age which got edited out along with loli. the editer wrote "this is a term for lolita not loli" so i decided to humor him and edit out the loli parts. which you are referring to

August 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Lolita (term). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Loli, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but that is slander and plain hypocrisy. you have been editing based on personal opinion and swearing before me so stop with that behavior first — Preceding unsigned comment added by PercherTM (talk • contribs) 02:30, August 24, 2019 (UTC)

Signing your posts

Hi, PercherTM, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) at the very end of your comment; this will automatically produce your name and the date. See WP:4TILDES. In addition, when replying to a previous comment, please indent your comment by one additional tab stop. Details on how to do this are here: WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]