This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MetsBot (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 4 November 2006 (Robot: substituting user signatures). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:56, 4 November 2006 by MetsBot (talk | contribs) (Robot: substituting user signatures)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Sybian received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
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)
- I think they'd be all right without the URL, which I would consider spam. – flamurai 08:49, Jan 30, 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.
- 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)
- 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)
