Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 2 May 2009

${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early discussion

What do men do with the other, er, protrusion? The Sybian company makes a male model, but they don't call it a Sybian. --Calieber 13:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right you are/ it's called Venus 2000; Chrissmith 14:56, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Should these images (which I shot) appear so that people have a better idea what the Sybian looks like? Voice your opinion to Hadal who had them removed.; Buttysquirrel 22:57, Jan 29, 2005 (-6 GMT)

Either of the first two would be great, if you could actually demonstrate that you're the copyright holder. dbenbenn | talk 07:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think they'd be all right without the URL, which I would consider spam. – flamurai 08:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am the webmaster of toyslove.com. As a result, the woman in the image on the right had to sign a release form so I have that. However, I will not post it publicly on the Internet since it contains her private information. If there is One (1) overriding admin in Wiki-ville, I will gladly submit an scanned copy of the release form to him/her. The other two images were shot in the same house so that should prove I took the photos. I even have witnesses that were there when I took the photos.

With that said, I disagree that the URL represents spam. If I were peddling "Viagra" or "make your penis 3 inches longer" or "lower your mortagage rates", then that is spam. Those previous examples have nothing to do with the Sybian or sex toys. My website has everything to do with sex toys and the Sybian. In fact, the Sybian is widely featured on the toyslove.com site. There are even instructional videos on how to use the sex toys on the site. Just because a site is commercial does not automatically qualify it's contributions as spam. Links to the www.toyslove.com site were removed, yet www.sybian.com still remains. Sybian.com is a commercial site that sells the device, whereas toyslove.com sells videos and images of the device in use. There are other links that should not have been removed such as www.sybian-movies.com. Again, that site (I have nothing to do with the site) is centered on sybian movies and images. They resell for sybian.com, toyslove.com, and other web sites affiliated with the sybian, hence the name sybian-movies.com. If I were to remove the URLs from the images, then I think an external link to the www.toyslove.com site should be placed in the article. People want to know where they can find decent footage and images of the machines in use. I think that an individual who sees the images below would want to be able to find additional, related images from the source.

I think all three images are nice. The one on the far right shows that this device is for women so that image should remain. If you're a guy, go get a Venus2000 or Topco Love Machine  ;)
--Buttysquirrel 17:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spam probably isn't the right word since it's on-topic, but I would say that since your site requires payment to get any information, it's most definitely advertising. Should basically every porn site in the world be allowed to place a link on Sex because they include videos showing people having sex? Since Misplaced Pages is a free project, links should provide free information that augments the information in the article. In fact, Misplaced Pages policy is not to include links that require payment. From External links: "try to avoid sites requiring payment". Also, Misplaced Pages image policy is that images must be unconditionally licensed under the GFDL. That means you can't allow the image to be used on the condition that a link to your site is in the article. No matter how you try to spin it, including a link to either site is primarily advertising. – flamurai 22:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the sex comparison, but a little bit off. Sex is very general and it would prove to be too unwieldy to include all sex related sites. in fact, toyslove.com would also fall under sex. With that said, Sybian is much more niche. In fact, I can probably count on 1 hand the number of genuine, quality sites that produce images and videos related to the sybian. We have to use a little common sense here. What about this image; Image:Sylvia_Saint_001.jpg? It appears that the cofounder of wikipedia owns boomis.com whose url loudly appears on Sylvia Saint's t-shirt. Does that entitle him to post images with his url in it? What about the rest of us?--Buttysquirrel 22:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Buttysquirrel, as you are the webmaster of toyslove.com, I suggest you put a page at that site that says basically "I own the copyright on these images, and I license them under the GFDL." That said, the third image surely won't go in the article. It's primarily a picture of a model, with the actual device hardly even visible.

Also, the URLs definitely won't go in the article. Either you'll make images without them available, or someone will just crop them off. dbenbenn | talk 23:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Go to this link on toyslove.com and read the very top caption. That should put an end to copyright questions.--Buttysquirrel 22:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks! dbenbenn | talk 23:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd just cloned the url out of the two images on the left, taking the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} at its word, and was about to upload when I noticed that Fvw had put them up for IfD again. I'm holding off on the replacement for the moment since I'm unconvinced these are really PD, but if anyone really wants them... —Korath (Talk) 02:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Toyslove links

There seems to be disagreement whether the link *Specs on the Sybian belongs on the External Links section of this article. Even though the link has appeared in the section for several years without dispute or disturbance, recently it has been removed. I think it provides an objective description with pros and cons of the Sybian as well as how to operate the machine. There is no solicitation to sell the machine or any other product for that matter. In fact, there has never been any advertisement on that page. It reads more like an information guide than anything else. It belongs in this article. Buttysquirrel 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with clear WP:COI issues, it's best to restate your previous disclosure of your conflict of interest. In this case, the fact that you're the webmaster of toyslove.com. --Ronz 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

-Ronz, if you read above about 2 paragraphs, it already states that I am the webmaster of toyslove.com. In fact we had that discussion in 2005. So what of it? There are not advertisements on the page in question. I do not see how it can be regarded as spam. As such, the page belongs with this article, as it has been here for years. Buttysquirrel 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines have changed. What used to be allowed is in many cases not allowed. Advertisements have nothing to do with it. --Ronz 01:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Can you please explain which policy changed (and when) that now makes this link void? If I read the COI that you sent me correctly, simply being affiliated with a site doesn't automatically make my contributions COI under the current guidelines, otherwise the Sybian image we contributed that is currently being used in the article would be COI. I'm not trying to call into question your desire to keep things "streamlined" with this article, but I do think this is a situation where a relevant link may have inadvertently been thrown out during housecleaning. Someone (bbatsell) even mentioned that this link is fine in the WP:COIN#Sybian discussions. I do think the link should go back up. Buttysquirrel 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up in the COIN discussion. It's your adding the link that's my concern. My concern is your adding the links to a website where you are the webmaster. --Ronz 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the "(courtesy of toyslove.com)" quote. That link is not a clickable link, and in no way does it solicit people to go there. It's simply a note of authorship. Does adding a link to a site that I am webmaster on unequivocally render that link void? Is that one of those "policies and guidelines have changed"? Again, I did not see that stipulation in the COI rules that you directed me to. I think everyone can agree that page is not spam. We've had this discussion in January of 2005 (see above), way before you came on the scene, and your arguments are either not correct or have not been supported. The link should go back up. We'll continue this in the COI discussion. Buttysquirrel 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Looks like most of the content is unsourced, and the only source is the company that makes the product. If secondary, reliable sources are not forthcoming, the article needs to be cut back to a stub. --Ronz 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are non-company sources, New Times newspapers and Penthouse magazine. Admittedly, Penthouse is not Vanity Fair, but the latter is unlikely to write about sex toys. The tone in too much like a company press release, but it can be re-written without just deleting material back to a stub.K8 fan 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There many more references since I wrote the comment above. --Ronz 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we remove the Sybian images the we contributed several years ago? Since Ronz recently joined wikipedia and determined to do a complete revision of this article, we feel that our contributions no longer fit the new Sybian article. --Buttysquirrel 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Video posting showing sybian operation

Hello, what happened to the video i posted? Is it not appropriate? I went through some effort to get permission to post it. I am not connected with toyslove, but i think it would be a shame to not have something like a video on this subject. Fantaxtic (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and left a message on your talk page. Given all the spamming and coi problems we've had with these toyslove videos, I think it should be discussed here first.

See WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NOTHOWTO. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I just didn't see any videos of the sybian in operation on this article. I will try to find other videos of the sybian in operation, but i have only seen howard stern and few other videos. So far toyslove is the only one that replied to my email and gave permission to be donated. Fantaxtic (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the video link is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.177.69.122 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantaxtic, are you the original author of the video? If so there may be a conflict of interest I'm not sure. The video is appropriate otherwise and should be included if we can clear up this possible COI, IMHO Passion Owns Me (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, if you mean did i shoot the clip. I just asked the original author if i could add it to wikipedia commons. The original author Paco sent an email to commons giving permission to make it open source. I'm new to this wikipedia editing so i added it to commons the best i could, not sure if i did it correctly. I saw the original clip on some video sites elsewhere and i thought it a good video showing the sybian in action as opposed to just a still image. I don't have much time to spend on wikipedia since i have a job and a life and i don't have a sybian so i couldn't shoot anything myself. Actually i thought it very nice of Paco to answer my email and actually write an email giving permission to donate the clip. I can't spend much time on this but if enough people think it's fine, then i will put the link back. Fantaxtic (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any probem with your edit to the article since you've addressed the COI question. There are lots of editors and contributors to this great site, and that's what makes wikipedia so great; so many contributors working together to build a useful and collaborative body of knowledge. Thanks for your efforts in getting the producer to give the video to Misplaced Pages Commons and good luck. Passion Owns Me (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated earlier, it's not my work nor do I have any involvement with the author or toyslove, but Paco has given permission and that permission is now archived in the Commons. With everyone's agreement, I have reposted the video, thanks. Fantaxtic (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand why Ronz removed the link. Unfortunately there's not many good, free Sybian videos to be found. Since Fantaxtic doesn't seem to have an agenda or obligation to toyslove, then I'd assume conflict of interest is not an issue here. The article could in fact use a little sprucing up. 194.145.182.25 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seems to be a bias in the video, but its informative value outweighs the idea that it may considered spam or advertising. What I like about the video is that it gives an animated overview of what the Sybian is without it being pornographic or idiotic (ie Howard Stern), and it's not a how-to or tutorial (although I'd like it better without the toyslove plug) 38.100.66.40 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the contributed video is having a hard time making it by Ronz's edits. I for one think the video does not qualify as spam and should be included. It appears there are enough people here who support inclusion of the link that it should in fact be a part of the article. Passion Owns Me (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, if all of the proponents weren't SPAs. Thus, I have some reservations. If I were to not assume good faith, I may assume that they were all sock puppets. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that I am involved in any SPA activity. I'm not sure about anyone else here, but this is my only account. I just "pop in" for a few minutes here and there to read some favorite articles and learn about the proper etiquette in editing articles, thus I won't edit until I'm confortable doing so. However, I think it's right for you ask since I see you are involved in keeping articles to a higher standard, kudos. Passion Owns Me (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since SPA (i.e., single purpose account) is a "term commonly used to describe a user account that edits either a single article or a group of related articles on Misplaced Pages," and your account has only participated in this discussion, it is (by definition) a SPA. I do not accuse you or anyone else of acting in bad faith. I'm afraid that (at least as far as I am concerned) a Spa's opinion carries less weight than an established editor with a variety of article being edited. That's just the way it is. No offense intended. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC) BTW - Thanks for the kudos. Feel free to start editing. Everyone has their first time.  :-) --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, thanks for the welcome. I'm getting my feet wet so hopefully I can make more worthwhile contribs, cheers! Passion Owns Me (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles