This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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)[reply]
There were concerns given to the office about this article and Danny acted upon them from my understanding. Despite not using the Dannyisme account, it's best to not restore this without asking him first, of course. Cowman109Talk 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns are fine, but there's also a greater consensus at work here. If this indeed wasn't an office decision, then something needs to be done. Some further explanation is necessary. --badlydrawnjefftalk 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Danny, I very strongly disagree with the conclusion that Fleshlight is non-notable. It's quite notorious among the sex toy industry. As far as I know they have no legal basis for demanding that sort of control, and if the article wasn't NPOV that could easily be fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this page's deletion was a WP:OFFICE action or not, could it at the very least be a protected redirect to artificial vagina? Even if you argue that the specific product is non-notable (which would honestly be extremely difficult) it's still a likely search term. --keepsleepingslackoff! 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should also make Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola redirects to Cola.
As Danny has edited quite a bit since my question above, and has failed to respond, I've listed this at deletion review. --badlydrawnjefftalk 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three thing I have to say:
I wasn't here when the above convo was going on but from what I understand, the makers of fleshlight contacted Danny and told him that they wanted control of this article? If so, I don't think any company has the right to control an article unless they take it to the administration of wikipedia. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert above, the makers have no legal standing to assume control. Fleshlight is a notable product, and would not be best to redirect it to artificial vagina - imagine redirecting Sybian to Dildo, that's not accurate. The current page is nothing but a depository for reviews. before this edit war took place, the page looked something like this: [1], why don't we just revert back to it and clean it up from there?--Philo 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself why this product is notable. Because of their aggressive marketing from supposedly "neutral" sources, their attempts to control Wikipedia being a good example of this. That is the only reason why this product has any notability. Debolaz 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently a repository for online reviews of the fleshlight. people feel this is better than a page that is about the fleshlight because of copyright paranoia? Even if ILF, the company that makes fleshlight, did request that they have full creative control of the page, they still don't have the right. ILF having creative control over this article is like Nintendo having full creative control over the Nintendo 64 or Wii articles, or Frito Lay over the Doritos article.--Philo 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
The article describes the use of the item, and includes pictures of the item itself. There is no necessity to show a male penis inside the item: given a padded hollow tube, do you imagine that our readers are incapable of understanding from the description of the item that the cock goes inside of the tube? Wikipedia is not censored, of course, but it also does not show explicit images for their own sake, without a need to do so. The image does not "improve" the article:, it simply makes it more sexually explicit than is necessary. BMK (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's question of details. Yes, most readers can probably work out where the penis is inserted - but the picture still gives a better idea of the actual use of the device than unaided imagination. Nor should one rule out the possibility that some readers might not have a clear idea of how the device is used; not all Wikipedia readers are sexually experienced adults, after all. The picture removes all possibility of uncertainty. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a question of "details" at all, and saying so is simply a way to insert an image which will be shocking or distasteful to many readers. I'm all for doing this when it is necessary to illustrate the material, but in this case there is no necessity to do so, as the article clearly states that it is a male "masturbatory aid". Do you really think that any of our readers are operating under the assumption that the Fleshlight is meant to be inserted in the man's ear, or under his knee, in order to help him reach an orgasm? There's only one thing a padded hole can be meant to be used for toaid in masturbation, the insertion of the man's penis into the hole so he can jerk off into it.Fair warning: if you re-insert the image into the article, I will take this immediately to AN/I, where your behavior -- not only here, but in multiple places -- can be examined and dealt with by the communuity.Oh, and just to be clear, you asked for the 3O on your own, I was not asked to acquiesce to this, and I do not feel bound to a 3O I did not agree to seek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 00:39, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
There is really no need to get so worked up about things. The addition of the image was a good faith edit on my part - and the request for a third opinion an equally good faith attempt to resolve the disagreement. Why so angry when I am not edit warring at all over the issue? The image may, indeed, be shocking or distasteful to many readers, but what of it? This is just the sort of situation WP:NOTCENSORED is meant to cover. Many of the pictures at masturbation may be shocking or distasteful to many readers, but would you remove them for that reason? If you stop to think about it, you would probably realize that non-adults - including those who may never even have heard of sex toys before - may quite possibly not have a clear idea of how a fleshlight is used, and that the image resolves this uncertainty for them. It's tedious to have to repeat what ought to be perfectly obvious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes, everything you do is, according to you, a "good faith" edit. I guess it's just a cosmic coincidence that so many of those edits are detrimental to the articles you put them in. BMK (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a forum for you to complain about me, or make random accusations or contemptuous comments. Just stick to the subject, please - or else don't bother commenting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, the forum to complain about you, and to present your non-random history of disruption, will come if and when you restore the image to this article, and I take the issue of it and your editing in general to AN/I. BMK (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you realize that I am correct, then you should not have placed even more drivel (such as your comments above) here. I have no idea why you feel the need to warn me against edit warring by restoring the image, when I have not the least inclination to do anything of the kind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Sorry, I have real work to do, improving the encyclopedia, I have no more time to spare for this drivel. End it. BMK (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Again, thank you for a helpful suggestion. That may well be the best image to use, with cropping (incidentally, the file's name is inappropriate, as the man's sexual orientation is neither apparent from the image nor relevant). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment: image of fleshlight in use[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clearly not to include. However, the reasons not to include are varied, including that the specific picture(s) don't really focus on the device, that the current article is too short to support another prominent image, that we shouldn't display a usage example for a specific brand (BTW, with all due respect to The Gnome, the first sentence of the article clearly states the generic article is artificial vagina), and that the image would be WP:GRATUITOUS since the usage is trivially described in the first sentence of the article body. The first two objections might be satisfied by getting a better image (as an experienced editor on Wikimedia Commons, I can attest to the fact that there is no shortage of volunteers to contribute this sort of photo) and expanding the article text, but the last two probably will not be; if that is done, that might be a harder RfC to close. --GRuban (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article include a picture of a Fleshlight in use? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Man using a fleshlight
Oppose - For the reasons outlined in the discussion above.Let's not mince images, to the right is the photo FKC is suggesting is necessary for the article, because without it our that readers will not understand how the Fleshlight is used. Note that the Fleshlight can barely be seen, the image is primarily of a man's scrotum and his curved, erect penis. BMK (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As noted above by Godsy, "Not all readers will quickly ascertain how the product works, and a picture of it in use aids in that respect." Contrary to what Beyond My Ken claims, I do not suggest that that particular image must be in the article. If a better or more appropriate image can be found (one focusing less on the penis and more on the actual fleshlight itself) then by all means let's use it instead. Those who look here will find that there are in fact a large number of possible alternatives. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While the article in question here could use a lot more text before it really needs another image, having an image of the product in use would be eventually helpful. I would suggest one of these two images though as a compromise (unless someone has something better): [2] or [3]. Guy1890 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Guy1890 - but please remember to sign your comments. The images you link to above can be considered, but I think this one might be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per BMK. The image is entirely superfluous. The method of use is IMMEDIATELY apparent to anyone, ever. -superβεεcat 08:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You and BMK are missing the point: not everyone is a sexually experienced adult, and not everyone has heard of sex toys prior to encountering the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is experienced with a great many things on Wikipedia. For the use of a device shaped like a vulva, an article simply need state "the penis is inserted." It's not a complicated device, any more than the vibrator article requires a photograph of a woman masturbating. -superβεεcat 23:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some... research... at most (all?) of the various (there are a lot) articles on sex toys on Wikipedia. None of them seem to have explicit photographs, nor do they seem to want for them. A couple do have illustrations (or even ancient paintings) which range from clinical to erotic. I really do feel that this is completely unnecessary; if there is consensus otherwise, I feel a more clinical illustration would be far more appropriate (though even that, considering the simplicity of the device is wholly superfluous IMO) -superβεεcat 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People who are not adults can always potentially misunderstand a written description. One cannot misunderstand an actual image of the product in use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Shaft goes in hole" is not exactly open to interpretation. Not buying it. Weak tea. -superβεεcat 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy for a wide range of people, not just non-adults, to misinterpret "shaft goes in hole", if someone were to add such an inappropriate sentence to the article. You are actually proving my point, rather than contradicting it, by responding in such a way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely silly. Are you trolling me? Do you also advocate for explicit images of women masturbating for every sex toy article? Vibrator use is at least somewhat more complicated than this device, which obviously requires no photograph. Also, do you routinely comment on outsider's RFC comments, in disputes which you're involved in? I've given my opinion, your opinion is long stated in what lead to the creation of this RFC. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, but this is starting to feel like an elaborate trolling attempt. Anyways, I've said my piece, unwatching this article. -superβεεcat 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not trolling you. I am respectfully expressing disagreement. It has been pointed out several times that it may not be obvious to everyone how a fleshlight is used; opponents of including an image of the product in use have never really understood or responded to that point. (Oh, and I would not advocate "explicit images of women masturbating for every sex toy article"; after all, some sex toys are designed for use by men only). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Responding to RfC... The argument for any image is weak, given that the text leaves no doubt what the device looks like or how it works. If it is decided to have an image, it should not be one that could in any way, shape, or form be interpreted as pornographic. What really should happen is the entire article goes to AfD as an advertisement. But since it will likely live and continue to have an image, at least keep the one that's there as there's nothing that would make a young kid point his finger and yell "eew, naked person!" A serious encyclopedia should be for all ages, even when covering topics that are not.--John, AF4JM (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be simply an argument for censorship. It's true that a picture of a fleshlight in use could be considered pornographic. That's irrelevant, however, as pornographic images are perfectly acceptable when they serve a valid encyclopedic purpose. If your argument that the image should not be in the article because it might upset a young child were valid, then surely all pornographic images should be removed from all Wikipedia articles. That isn't going to happen. As a matter of fact, it's precisely young children who are most likely to benefit from such an image, as they are the ones most likely to not grasp how a fleshlight is used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Even if there were a case for including such an image in a general article on artificial genitalia (and I don't see anything approaching a case being made here), there's no plausible justification for including such an image in the article on an individual brand. We don't do that, for example, in the articles on individual brands of condoms. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does Wikipedia even have an article such as Artificial genitalia? If the answer is no, then your argument is totally spurious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question about "artificial genitalia" is Yes, dildo, by another name. -The Gnome (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The image focus is on the penis. The device is barely visible. If there really needs to be an image it should be one where penis is fully inserted in the device. This is an encyclopedia. Whenever we can avoid having pics of greasy cock shafts jumping on the face of the readers we should avoid them. ViperFace (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For most of the reasons explicated above; primarily, that it is unnecessary. BMK (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted some time ago, it's not a question of whether an image is "unnecessary" or not, but whether one can reasonably conclude that it improves the article. The image ViperFace suggests is, in my view, a poor image as it stands, since it shows an unreasonably large amount of a man's naked body. However, if the image were suitably cropped so that it showed only the fleshlight in use and removed the rest of the irrelevant male nudity, then it would be a very good image to use, better than the image I added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not on the grounds of prudeness, since Wikipedia is not a prude, but because the image is strongly superfluous. If enough people support the inclusion of a demonstration for the use of a "fleshlight", then an illustration, such as the one shown in the Wikipedia entry for "condom" might do. But a photographic image here teaches nothing we do not readily understand. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a drawing of a fleshlight in use may be acceptable but that a photograph of it in use is not. I honestly fail to see any relevant difference between a drawing and a photograph. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see the difference, then check out the series of illustrations in the entry for "condom" and then you will perhaps understand. If the purpose of this exercise is to inform people how to use a fleshlight, then a static photograph simply won't do. In any case, I explicitly stated that the use of illustrations or photographs would be superfluous since this is a blatantly obvious matter. I'd personally would not object to a series of illustrations as an option if enough people here decide that a How-To guide is needed. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FKC: Since there is no doubt that the way to use it is to stick one's penis into the opening, even drawn illustrations would be unnecessary, and will be removed if added to the article. I know there is a Simple English Wikipedia for people whose command of English is not great, why not look to see if there's a Stupid People's English Wikipedia - an article there might need illustrations. BMK (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been noted several times that what may be obvious to some is not necessarily obvious to all. How to use a fleshlight may not be obvious to people who are not adults. I have said so several times over, and no one has ever addressed the point. Non-adults may lack of understanding of how to use sex toys (which they might not have even heard of before) without being "stupid". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, and hopefully, for the last time: This is not about censoring images; Wikipedia is not a prude. However, Wikipedia's standard is "whether the readers, the general public, will, as a group, tend to understand the content of the page significantly better when the image is included, or whether it would be detrimental to their understanding to omit it." In this quite specific context, including the image of a penis inserted in a "fleshlight" adds absolutely nothing to the description in the text, "penis inserted in fleshlight." We are not here to state the obvious; the claim that the use of the "fleshlight" might not be obvious to non-adult minds is very weak. However, if enough readers or RfC participants do demand a pictorial explanation, then, as I said, a series of drawings might do. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, obvious is relative. You suggest that non-adults would always understand right way how a fleshlight is used; I beg to differ. In any case, an image of a fleshlight in use can convey more information than the text "penis inserted in fleshlight." For example, if we used a version of the image Godsy mentioned above, it shows that the penis can be fully inserted into the fleshlight, something that it would seem strange to note in text. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a specific guideline about what is "obvious" and what is not, precisely so as to eliminate or, at least, limit relativistic arguments. As to the extent of information provided in the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a completist's wet dream! Wikipedia is not a manual nor a guidebook. To wit, "while an article can have a description of the thing and how to use it in general, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, an advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or a suggestion box." That's directly from the relevant rule which is quite clear. -The Gnome (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUE is an essay, not a guideline. It is disingenuous to call it a guideline ("This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.") FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a guideline. And guidelines are supposed to guide us editors and not to be casually ignored. Moreover, what I quoted about Wikipedia not being a completist's wet dream is a rule and quite a firm one at that! Kindly revisit it and specifically the part about Wikipedia not being a how-to style owner's manual, an advice column or a suggestion box. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:BLUE is an essay, and it states as much: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." WP:NOT does state, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not", but I do not believe an image of a fleshlight in use violates that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected: WP:BLUE is an essay. Essays are meant to be "taken into consideration," something you choose not to do. Fair enough. Nonenetheless, this changes nothing from the main argument against the point you are attempting to push, i.e. that the Wikipedia reader needs some kind of detailed explanation about Fleshlight, some how-to instructions. You wrote that the text needs to convey "more information," mentioning that the reader should know that "the penis can be fully inserted into the fleshlight." Again, I direct your attention to the rule that Wikipedia is not a how-to style owner's manual. You seem to refuse to accept this, which only prolongs a senseless debate. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with condition This RFC is based on FreeKnowledgeCreator's single question, 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)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from. Guy1890 made a similar point above, and it's not unreasonable. However, I believe it's still worthwhile to see whether consensus can be formed for the eventual inclusion of another image of a fleshlight in use (not the one I originally added) when the moment is right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tutelary, I read your position as essentially an Oppose with conditions. Perhaps you should clarify. -The Gnome (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to the inclusion of another image when the moment is right. I hope that makes it clearer. Tutelary (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is very short, and the image would dominate, especially with the infobox already there. If the article were made longer, I would be willing to reevaluate, but as of now, I don't think it improves the article. I truly doubt anyone would be confused as to what a "masturbatory aid" is, does, or how it is used. If they are, I'm sure clicking some wikilinks or googling will elucidate that rather quickly. Disclaimer: I was brought from an FRS request, but am commenting logged out for privacy reasons. See WP:VALIDALT and WP:LOGOUT128.84.125.234 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
Hi Elbert, I'm glad you're passionate about improving this article. However, you should brush up on Wikipedia's policies about Original Research and Verifiability. I believe that you are adding true information to the article, but that's not enough. Information needs to be verifiable, ideally from a secondary source. LWizard@ 03:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia editors are preventing the addition of new information of this page which is proven using the sources already contained within the article. Please request mediation for this page. These Wikipedia editors are either paid, biased, or too dumb to look at the page or discuss claims before abusing their authority. First LizardWizard. Now idreamofgenie
(above edit by blocked user moved to relevant section by IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It'd be a lot easier to communicate with you if you created an account, though you don't have to. Anyway, we cannot just accept your word that your grandfather is written in the patent, we need an independent reliable sources that supports that claim. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
^"Product Builder". Fleshlight. Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved March 18, 2017. {{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)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request:
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFleshlight_Shower_Mount.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGay_man_using_a_clear_Fleshjack.JPG){kind=link}
