This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fleshlight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As Brad made clear in a post to the mailing list, we should be doing everything we can to prevent using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. This page was created for promotional purposes. It is a page for a specific brand of a product, not even for the product itself. The manufacturers have admitted that it is promotional and have requested that they have sole discretion over what content is included and removed so as not to hurt their product placement. They have also requested that links to rival brands be removed. As for this being a brand, there are a heck of a lotta brands out there. Are we an encyclopedia or a marketers' forum. Are we going to maintain open editing, or are we going to fall subject to locking articles, just because people want control over them. Are we about to provide free advertising on the 11th largest website in the world, anf if so, are we going to start with minor products of no real significance? Are we going to put up with edit wars between rival marketing campaigns? Would anyone even care if this was some third rate laundry detergent or adult incontinence product, instead of a sex toy? No. Danny 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As Danny has edited quite a bit since my question above, and has failed to respond, I've listed this at deletion review. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
An image I added (of a man using a fleshlight) was recently removed with the comment, "not necessary". I do not find "not necessary" to be sufficient grounds for removing the image. One could argue that strictly speaking the article's remaining image is not necessary - as one could describe the appearance of fleshlights using prose. The relevant issue is not whether the image is "necessary" but whether it improves the article. I believe it does, as it gives readers a better idea of how a fleshlight is actually used. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Fleshlight and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. |
Opinion: Wikipedia is not censored, and due to the nature of the topic at hand, I don't think it is unreasonable to show such an image. Not all readers will quickly ascertain how the product works, and a picture of it in use aids in that respect. However, a different/better picture would be preferable if available, as the image in question focuses more on the phallus than the item which is the subject of this article. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. |
Should the article include a picture of a Fleshlight in use? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Should the article include a picture of a Fleshlight in use?and that question, based on today's article and its length of content, is a 'no'. There would be too much of an image to text ratio and as a result, would kind of distract the reader. Other users are saying they oppose based on a single image with the penis being the primary focus rather than the fleshlight. I note that somebody has added two other example images which would be more suitable. The other images garner my support--in the future, when there is more content to the article at hand. But right now, with the article the way it is, I think it would be superfluous to add an image. Tutelary ( talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My proposed edit
The Fleshlight was developed by Elbert Davis of Laguna Industries, now SuperGel Int'l Inc, although was designed by Steve Shubin, who was granted a
patent for the
[1] "device for discreet
sperm collection"
[2] and it is marketed by Interactive Life Forms.
[3] as well one can find and have their own gel products created by SuperGel Int'l Inc, a 100% made in USA company. The Fleshlight is named for the unique characteristics given by the Davis composition, such as the
flesh-like material used in its inner sleeve, as well as the plastic case that houses the sleeve, which is fashioned to look like an oversized
flashlight. The inner sleeve is available with a
vulva,
anus or
mouth orifice, in colors representing a variety of
ethnicities as well as see-through, and 48 different internal textures.
[4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F ( talk) 02:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats my deceased granthfather. I'm Dean, his grandson. Honestly it's sad what they did to my grandfather. I was hoping Wikipedia would be at least a way to showcase that my grandfather was named in the patent. Obviously he gets no grandeur, nor was Laguna Industries able to take on distribution for reasons which I would imagine need verification before disclosing. What I've attempted to include is not even 1/10 of what I could say other than it's obvious Elbert Davis's unrequited genius didn't receive it's due. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F (
talk) 03:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
again my edits are mundane compared to the account that could be conveyed. Look at the citations included for this article... look at my sources "the patent".. I mean what is the fact in disputation, so unfair... especially considering the edit itself is consistent with the article and evidence contained therein... This is a false and glorified promo page before my edits, and my edits were sound and use the sources already approved within the article. You should revise my edit back, otherwise that's wildly unfair. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F (
talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
(above edit by blocked user moved to relevant section by IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 12:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC))
Praxidicae Is preventing changes which are verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 ( talk) 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Epistulae_ad_Familiares
Why did you delete my reversion? Did you see the patent which says Elbert was the developer of Gel? The Davis composition which comprises the Fleshlight? The source is already in the article... You don’t even care about the evidence and reverted my edit before you could have even investigated.
THIS TALK PAGE IS USELESS AND THESE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ARE LIKELY CORRUPT BECAUSE THEY WONT RESPOND OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE EVIDENCE... SAYING THAT ELBERT AS THE DEVELOPER IS UNSOURCED — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 (
talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Epistulae_ad_Familiares is going out of their way to ignore justification, and request for clarification. My sources edits are claimed unsourced. Then just calls me disruptive when asking what is unsourced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 (
talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae has reverted the obviously sourced edit which simply states that’s Elbert was a developer named in the patent. When seeking help from the help desk...guess who it is..Praxidicae, which then says to check the talk page for responses... obviously it’s basically just me here stating how unfounded such reversions are. Praxidicae is an abusive editor who then blocked me from help because they were the one who prevented my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.151.136 ( talk) 15:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
331dot is the USPTO a reliable source... this article contains the patent in question... if this patent is not a credible source it should be removed along with all information that it’s currently being used to support.
It’s absurd to say the patent itself is less credible than a link to some article which mentions the patent that’s already included. Nobody has to take anyone’s word for it. Elbert Davis is in the patent listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.177.14 ( talk) 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay it’s now become a lesson is corruption. The whole cast of characters that have prevented edits are known for just banning and blocking. Elbert Davis is in the patent, 5 times actually. His company was Lahaina industries which became SuperGel Int’l Inc. You editing Wikipedia weirdos who are so obsessed with keeping the truth about Fleshlight a secret must be a tight knit group indeed.
Anyway, thanks for trying to distort history, refuse to look at the patent already provided... therefore accepted as a source, but when used as a source for information you don’t like, you say another source about that source is necessary.
Whatever games your bunch loves to play, it really only bugs me when I google your usernames and find that you do this to a lot of people. What a terrible life to just sit there and distort history. Not like anyone really believes Wikipedia these days anyway, I just learned that when they say there are no lifers policing pages either for money or some sick joy, it is not bs. I thought no, I could say hey the source has been provided I’m simply repeating what’s already in the verified source ie patent.
Anyway have a sweet sweet time you pack of nutbags — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.177.15 ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
total rando here, this dude calling "fake news" and accusing editors of being paid off by big fleshlight to hide THE TRUTH is one of the funniest things i've seen on here in a long time. that having been said, because i was curious i looked through the various patents and it seems like OP's grandpa didn't exactly "develop" the fleshlight as was claimed. yes, one of his patents was cited in the creation of it, specifically in the polymer exterior of the device, but the first applications for the use of his specific patent are for various non-slip gloves. it took over 2 years for Mr. Davis' patent to be used in the context of the fleshlight. suffice to say, i believe it is disingenuous to claim that he developed the fleshlight without any additional information. if the OP is reading this, sorry dude. your grandpa invented something cool, but as an impartial passer-by i gotta agree with the so-called "pack of nutbags"
Dankdevice (
talk) 09:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
It sounds so similar to flashlight but it's something completely different and I am quite confused. 79.68.57.221 ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fleshlight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As Brad made clear in a post to the mailing list, we should be doing everything we can to prevent using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. This page was created for promotional purposes. It is a page for a specific brand of a product, not even for the product itself. The manufacturers have admitted that it is promotional and have requested that they have sole discretion over what content is included and removed so as not to hurt their product placement. They have also requested that links to rival brands be removed. As for this being a brand, there are a heck of a lotta brands out there. Are we an encyclopedia or a marketers' forum. Are we going to maintain open editing, or are we going to fall subject to locking articles, just because people want control over them. Are we about to provide free advertising on the 11th largest website in the world, anf if so, are we going to start with minor products of no real significance? Are we going to put up with edit wars between rival marketing campaigns? Would anyone even care if this was some third rate laundry detergent or adult incontinence product, instead of a sex toy? No. Danny 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As Danny has edited quite a bit since my question above, and has failed to respond, I've listed this at deletion review. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
An image I added (of a man using a fleshlight) was recently removed with the comment, "not necessary". I do not find "not necessary" to be sufficient grounds for removing the image. One could argue that strictly speaking the article's remaining image is not necessary - as one could describe the appearance of fleshlights using prose. The relevant issue is not whether the image is "necessary" but whether it improves the article. I believe it does, as it gives readers a better idea of how a fleshlight is actually used. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 10:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Fleshlight and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. |
Opinion: Wikipedia is not censored, and due to the nature of the topic at hand, I don't think it is unreasonable to show such an image. Not all readers will quickly ascertain how the product works, and a picture of it in use aids in that respect. However, a different/better picture would be preferable if available, as the image in question focuses more on the phallus than the item which is the subject of this article. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. |
Should the article include a picture of a Fleshlight in use? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Should the article include a picture of a Fleshlight in use?and that question, based on today's article and its length of content, is a 'no'. There would be too much of an image to text ratio and as a result, would kind of distract the reader. Other users are saying they oppose based on a single image with the penis being the primary focus rather than the fleshlight. I note that somebody has added two other example images which would be more suitable. The other images garner my support--in the future, when there is more content to the article at hand. But right now, with the article the way it is, I think it would be superfluous to add an image. Tutelary ( talk) 15:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My proposed edit
The Fleshlight was developed by Elbert Davis of Laguna Industries, now SuperGel Int'l Inc, although was designed by Steve Shubin, who was granted a
patent for the
[1] "device for discreet
sperm collection"
[2] and it is marketed by Interactive Life Forms.
[3] as well one can find and have their own gel products created by SuperGel Int'l Inc, a 100% made in USA company. The Fleshlight is named for the unique characteristics given by the Davis composition, such as the
flesh-like material used in its inner sleeve, as well as the plastic case that houses the sleeve, which is fashioned to look like an oversized
flashlight. The inner sleeve is available with a
vulva,
anus or
mouth orifice, in colors representing a variety of
ethnicities as well as see-through, and 48 different internal textures.
[4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F ( talk) 02:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats my deceased granthfather. I'm Dean, his grandson. Honestly it's sad what they did to my grandfather. I was hoping Wikipedia would be at least a way to showcase that my grandfather was named in the patent. Obviously he gets no grandeur, nor was Laguna Industries able to take on distribution for reasons which I would imagine need verification before disclosing. What I've attempted to include is not even 1/10 of what I could say other than it's obvious Elbert Davis's unrequited genius didn't receive it's due. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F (
talk) 03:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
again my edits are mundane compared to the account that could be conveyed. Look at the citations included for this article... look at my sources "the patent".. I mean what is the fact in disputation, so unfair... especially considering the edit itself is consistent with the article and evidence contained therein... This is a false and glorified promo page before my edits, and my edits were sound and use the sources already approved within the article. You should revise my edit back, otherwise that's wildly unfair. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:8079:3018:567B:D45F (
talk) 03:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
(above edit by blocked user moved to relevant section by IdreamofJeanie ( talk) 12:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC))
Praxidicae Is preventing changes which are verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 ( talk) 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Epistulae_ad_Familiares
Why did you delete my reversion? Did you see the patent which says Elbert was the developer of Gel? The Davis composition which comprises the Fleshlight? The source is already in the article... You don’t even care about the evidence and reverted my edit before you could have even investigated.
THIS TALK PAGE IS USELESS AND THESE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ARE LIKELY CORRUPT BECAUSE THEY WONT RESPOND OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE EVIDENCE... SAYING THAT ELBERT AS THE DEVELOPER IS UNSOURCED — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 (
talk) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Epistulae_ad_Familiares is going out of their way to ignore justification, and request for clarification. My sources edits are claimed unsourced. Then just calls me disruptive when asking what is unsourced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:34 (
talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Praxidicae has reverted the obviously sourced edit which simply states that’s Elbert was a developer named in the patent. When seeking help from the help desk...guess who it is..Praxidicae, which then says to check the talk page for responses... obviously it’s basically just me here stating how unfounded such reversions are. Praxidicae is an abusive editor who then blocked me from help because they were the one who prevented my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.151.136 ( talk) 15:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
331dot is the USPTO a reliable source... this article contains the patent in question... if this patent is not a credible source it should be removed along with all information that it’s currently being used to support.
It’s absurd to say the patent itself is less credible than a link to some article which mentions the patent that’s already included. Nobody has to take anyone’s word for it. Elbert Davis is in the patent listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.177.14 ( talk) 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay it’s now become a lesson is corruption. The whole cast of characters that have prevented edits are known for just banning and blocking. Elbert Davis is in the patent, 5 times actually. His company was Lahaina industries which became SuperGel Int’l Inc. You editing Wikipedia weirdos who are so obsessed with keeping the truth about Fleshlight a secret must be a tight knit group indeed.
Anyway, thanks for trying to distort history, refuse to look at the patent already provided... therefore accepted as a source, but when used as a source for information you don’t like, you say another source about that source is necessary.
Whatever games your bunch loves to play, it really only bugs me when I google your usernames and find that you do this to a lot of people. What a terrible life to just sit there and distort history. Not like anyone really believes Wikipedia these days anyway, I just learned that when they say there are no lifers policing pages either for money or some sick joy, it is not bs. I thought no, I could say hey the source has been provided I’m simply repeating what’s already in the verified source ie patent.
Anyway have a sweet sweet time you pack of nutbags — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.177.15 ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
total rando here, this dude calling "fake news" and accusing editors of being paid off by big fleshlight to hide THE TRUTH is one of the funniest things i've seen on here in a long time. that having been said, because i was curious i looked through the various patents and it seems like OP's grandpa didn't exactly "develop" the fleshlight as was claimed. yes, one of his patents was cited in the creation of it, specifically in the polymer exterior of the device, but the first applications for the use of his specific patent are for various non-slip gloves. it took over 2 years for Mr. Davis' patent to be used in the context of the fleshlight. suffice to say, i believe it is disingenuous to claim that he developed the fleshlight without any additional information. if the OP is reading this, sorry dude. your grandpa invented something cool, but as an impartial passer-by i gotta agree with the so-called "pack of nutbags"
Dankdevice (
talk) 09:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
It sounds so similar to flashlight but it's something completely different and I am quite confused. 79.68.57.221 ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)