Talk:Sybian

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia," 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)

Roman defloration by statues

In the Roman empire, women are said to have deflorating themselves by sitting onto statues of Priapos (with erected cock). Is that correct or not? It then would have been the first "Sybian" (and the Antiquity discovered and invented nearly everything) -- Jan 14, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.248.104 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia forbids original research, and this counts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Development

I have removed the following text from the article because it is a) almost entirely unencyclopaedic, b) has no references other than the primary source, and c) it non-neutral and advertorial.

If anyone wishes to discuss, please go ahead.  Chzz  ►  11:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Sybian was conceived and developed by dance instructor Dave Lampert. Lampert stated that he first conceived the idea in the 1970s to address feelings of sexual frustration expressed by female clients in his dance classes. After several false starts Lampert abandoned the idea until 1983 when he was encouraged to develop it further by a female physician. The following summer Lampert visited adult book stores and retailers to see if he could find any similar devices. Unable to locate them he looked more seriously into creating the device. A year and a half was spent reviewing books on sex and sex counseling in an effort to identify people who could help further the project. A prototype was built in 1985 from sheet metal mounted on a wooden frame with a vibrator projecting through an opening inside the housing; Sybians today are modeled from a second prototype. Lampert promoted the device as a healthy addition to female sexuality to address customer concerns that it was pornographic.

Lampert and his team initially called the device Master Better, shortened to "MB" for about four years before selecting a new one. The prefix syb was derived from Sybaris, an Ancient Greek city in southern Italy known as a center of luxurious living. The makers of the Sybian call Sybian users "Sybarites" — the name given to the denizens of the ancient city, which has survived to modern times as meaning a person who likes luxurious items.

It could be shortened, but it does give the context of the machine's conception and development. Much like a blog can be used for a statement by a person about themselves if not unduly self-serving, I think company information can be appropriately sourced to the company itself (particularly when it's unlikely you're going to see that kind of information in reliable, secondary sources). I would prefer to return it to the page, but I'm not averse to modifying it further. I don't see it as advertising (I think I wrote most of it actually) but if you think so I have no issue with you having a go at de-puffing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU (talk · contribs) reverted[2] the removal, so I am seeking more opinions here.  Chzz  ►  03:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with seeking outside input. I returned it to the page five days after your removal, two days after posting my above comment on this talk page. I see that as a reasonable amount of time to wait, but everyone has their own calendar on the matter. What do you think of my rational about retaining the information, with due regard to the source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have further trimmed and rewritten some of this material, based on the given source, to make it less advertorial and more enyclopedic. What do others think? --Simon Speed (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good efforts, but I'm still not happy with a lot of it. Examples;

After some false starts he abandoned the project until 1983, when he started research and development after a discussion with a female physician. - these are unreferencable, unverifiable 'pseudo-facts' - there is no way to prove or disprove this, other than the primary source. OK, so it's not blatant promotion, but still...is it encyclopaedic?

Lampert was initially concerned that what he was working on might be "pornographic" , but found he got a better reception when he adopted a more positive attitude - even worse, because this part is non-neutral as well as being unreferenced with independent sources

The makers of the Sybian call Sybian users "Sybarites" — the name given to the denizens of the ancient city, which has survived to modern times as meaning a person who likes luxurious items. - this strikes me as a mixture of unrelated factual info and promotion of the product; again, not verifiable from independent references, and does not conform to agreed usage of primary sources, viz. it's not a 'simple statement of fact'.

The above are examples, to illustrate the problems I have with this kind of info in articles of this type. Please feel free to ask me if I need to elaborate.  Chzz  ►  23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above points, I've trimmed a bit more with this in mind. I think it's reasonable to note when the invention went from being an idea to a rough model to something saleable, so I kept a bit from the first point. The original text had some other information in it I thought might be worth keeping (underlined):

Lampert stated that he first conceived the idea in the 1970s to address feelings of sexual frustration expressed by female clients in his dance classes.

This adds a bit to the original conception of it.

The following summer Lampert visited adult book stores and retailers to see if he could find any similar devices.

A bit spammy, but I think the idea that he couldn't find anything could be worth mentioning.

A year and a half was spent reviewing books on sex and sex counseling in an effort to identify people who could help further the project.

Perhaps better phrased as "spent a year and a half researching and developing the idea" or something similar. Gives the impression he didn't just wander into his office one day and thing, "Man, I'll mount a superdildo on a saddle".

Anyone else think there's anything worth salvaging? If not, then I'm content to let it lie. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Advert

I have removed the video file (shown here) from the article, because it is clearly an advert, an 'infomercial'. This is nothing whatsoever to do with any form of censorship, or permission. Wikipedia does not permit advertising. If we permitted this type of thing, we would have an advert on the page of every product.

See Wikipedia:Advert#Videos.  Chzz  ►  12:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Promotional video explaining the machine's use

Thanks for finally putting that to rest. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to review, but I don't see the video as violating WP:ADVERT and it does seem encyclopedic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that WLU (talk · contribs) has reverted[3] my edits, reinstating the video. I will seek further opinions from Wikipedia:Content noticeboard and from WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.  Chzz  ►  03:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the video does seem to break policy: though I do like the explanation that doesn't get too X-rated. The introduction at the beginning of the video has a clear mention of a company and the first 22 seconds are either waffle or praise for the item. There's a big banner in the bottom right corner which isn't showing because of the screen size that's being used, but would make the thing even worse if it did. If the video lost those first seconds and the banner still didn't show, do you think it would be OK? --Simon Speed (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most relevant and encyclopedic aspect of the video is that it clearly describes (in fact demonstrates) how the machine works. Cutting down the video in size and length to remove spammy stuff would certainly improve it and would make me happier about using it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the first 22 seconds. I can't actually remove the banner but it still doesn't show. The video had already had its shape adjusted to hide the banner and had some more advertising material removed from the end. There is now no mention of the commercial website and the amount of praise for the item has been reduced. I don't think it breaks policy anymore. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. Chzz, is it acceptable to you now? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

'Acceptable' is a good word for it, yes; I'm glad that the video was edited to remove the more blatant spam content; personally I worry about adverts for products on Wikipedia, and would rather it wasn't here at all, but I've listened to the community both here and in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toyslove sybian in action kobe lee.OGG - so this is an easy stick to drop.

To make it clear: I accept the edited version of the video, as it currently appears in the article. Glad we improved it. Thanks all,  Chzz  ►  23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim removed

"However, its only on-air use done to full orgasm was on 27 November 2011 on the show called "The Edge of Insanity".[6][7]"

Neither source cited mention anything about the episode. It isn't even possible for the articles cited to have mentioned an episode that aired after they were written. In addition, a two minute search on Google proves the claim totally false. There are many episodes.--65.96.7.143 (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable users?

I'm not adding this myself because as an IP editor it'll just be removed without justification, but its use on Stern has led to a number of notable individuals making use of the Sybian on the air. Aside from many notable porn stars, it is verifiable (and therefore not WP:BLP violation) to note Carmen Electra, Tila Tequila and Adrienne Curry have also ridden the Sybian on Stern's programme (verifiable by way of video archives of these appearances being circulated online). 68.146.70.177 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not always just about verifiability, but also significance. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts. In this case we would need an independent and reliable source to give significant coverage of these facts for them to be appropriate for inclusion in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a source now, but since I don't have access to Forbes, can someone verify it actually says what our article says it does, that the Sybian became vastly more prominent after it appeared on the show? If the source doesn't actually say what we claim it does, e.g. it just mentions it appeared on the shor or was a popular item on the show, this either needs to be reworded or removed. Personally I find it to be fairly dubious claim, the Howard Stern show may be popular, but it's not that popular especially outside the US and the Sybian wasn't that obscure a device particularly after the rise of the internet. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Connection to MRM???

Anyone know if Dave Lampert is connected to the Monticello Railway Museum which is located only a mile away or so. I have no idea but I'm curious since it seems like he might be interested in mechanical type things and they did collect some sizable donations to repair the steam engine, with an all-new boiler. I'm not sure if the answer is affirmative if it's worth including as the article is about the device not the inventor. Just wondering myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.7.5 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

See also

Add this to the see also section:

• Doc Johnson iRide Vibrating Saddle
• E.E.E., Inc. Jetaime : together with the Sybian, the most popular sit-on vibrator
• Love Honey Rock Box

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.162.165 (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed these external links. It might not have been your intention but you appear to be promoting those products which is against Wikipedia guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Motorbunny

I'll just note the existence of Draft:Motorbunny here. The devices appear very similar in design and function. -- The Anome (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sybian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823132305/https://www.sybian.com/sybian/history.html to http://www.sybian.com/sybian/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Venus 2000 aka Venus by Sybian or delete both as non-notable?

The article Venus 2000 says it is also known as Venus by Sybian so perhaps combine the 2. As a side issue... the 2 articles seem like paid for writer articles to promote Abco’s products. And neither seem to meet Wiki’s notability standards. I don’t know/don’t have time to work out how to progress a merge or recommend a delete but hopefully someone does and feels so inclined. Dakinijones (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Toyslove sybian in action kobe lee.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Toyslove sybian in action kobe lee.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That pixelated, twice truncated, cropped ex-pornsite advertisement

Apparently what ever User:Gmaxwell did to crop out the Watermark does no longer work and it's back. Is this video really necessary or even useful? It is of so low a quality that it seems seriously out of place. --2003:C9:471A:3700:C81A:D4DE:4709:6B2 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

'For Women'?

The top of the article describes the Sybian as a "Sex Toy for Women". Is it not also used by some gay men? The page for dildo, for instance, doesn't describe it as a sex toy solely for women, is there some reason this page should describe the Sybian that way? HisMajestyRick (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Another source

There's a 2007 Howard Stern video that is in part about the Sybian, and in part about Lampert, called "Sybian The Documentary". See IMDM here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0950940/ — The Anome (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)