Talk:Sybian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexuality Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Sybian has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article 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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

[edit] Early discussion

What do men do with the other, er, protrusion? The Sybian company makes a male model[1], 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^TM 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 Wikipedia is a free project, links should provide free information that augments the information in the article. In fact, Wikipedia policy is not to include links that require payment. From External links: "try to avoid sites requiring payment". Also, Wikipedia 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^TM 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)