Talk:Sissy baby

message: Having been led down the path begining with the Play Pen VfD I find myself here.  This page does not achieve the standard NPOV required by Wikipedia.  I'm not putting any tags on the page at this time, I'm trying to go softly here.  
Have a look at the excellent BDSM article for an example of a potentially controversial topic treated in an encyclopedic manner.
Statements such as "Many Sissy Babies enjoy dressing in pink, frilly dresses[...]" are simply not going to work.  Firstly, how many and what are your sources?  Secondly, the use of phrases like "pink, frilly dresses" has rather more, um, focus, than is appropiate.  I could go on: the unnecessary list of baby items, the completely unattributed discussion of penis size, the use of "Mommy" and "Daddy", the photo.  By Darwin's dog, the photo has got to go, it is totally inappropiate.  Again, compare the the photo on the BDSM page - it's not salacious, but clearly illustrates the article.
In faith,
brenneman(t)(c) 13:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Tone 

message: The picture is of neutral tone showing no private parts and covering much of the skin. It shows what sissy babies like to wear, it is not porn for the masses and is indeed legal for all ages.
(Unsigned comment by OrbitOne. - brenneman(t)(c)) 
*Please demonstrate that this is not copyvio material.brenneman(t)(c) 00:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Picture

message: We have a number of polls still going on actually, they are not closed yet, but they do show what sissy babies like to wear already. When they are closed, would it make you happy to see the exact results?
(Unsigned comment by OrbitOne. - brenneman(t)(c))
*Wikipedia:Cite_sources and also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. brenneman[[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)
Daily Diapers, Sissy Beckys and Bytemine are all reliable sources, just because you never heard of them does not mean they are gone with the wind sites. --OrbitOne 09:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What babies like

message: The list of baby items is a simple list to put forward as simple as possible what Sissy Babies like or what items are associated with this fetish. Can you point out anything exact that goes against the policy of wikipedia in that list?
--OrbitOne 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The List

message: As you have not addressed several points above, I've proceeded with the following changes:
#Removed unsupported percentages:
#: Unsupported by who? --OrbitOne 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale changes. 

message: To make adressing the points easier, I will cut them up and address them point by point.
--OrbitOne 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Insults, self-selection bias, and [[Wikipedia:Wikilove|Wikilove]]

message: Hey guys, I'm gonna be rude and comment on your discussion. Actually its more of a request than a comment. I have tried to read what is on this page, but I am a bit unsure what exactly to make of it. However, there seems to be a dispute over sources here. So what I would like both of you to do is to give me a short list of what you feel should constitute an article and the sources you claim can back them up. Do this and we'll talk. Disregard the dispute for a bit and just list what you feel should be there, not what you think the other one should feel what should be there. The first step to find a solution is to make sure there is a possibility that both parties can talk to eachother. 
So a good clean list of a couple of points from each of you about what the article should consist of, what sources you have, and that's it. If you allow me, I'll be the judge of whether what you say is a good idea and if anything of what you both say can be merged into one, or if there is some agreement on some of the points. Does that sound ok to you guys? Inter\Echo 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I have also gotten a request to take a closer look at this and one other talk page. I'll try to get an overview tomorrow or the day after. Inter\Echo 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I am willing to go into a conversation with him as to what should the content be made of, but I do wish to have someone mediate this because DD and I have worked hard to fulfill his wishes and he has ignored or been a sharp critic of our attempts. I really dont have a problem with him personally, only his actions and they say once bitten, twice shy. Only comment I have about him as a subjective comment is, I believe he has a problem with ABDL and sissy babies and infantilism in general.
--OrbitOne 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna be a little stern here and say that while the article is currently undergoing mediation, there will be no editing it. I see that there hasn't been much since we started and that's good. I will protect it if somebody involved in the conflict is editing the article. That said, let's have a conversation about what's there and what's not. See my replies to the sections above and let's get some constructive viewpoints out in the open. What about doing it section pr section of the article? Start with the lead, then go down the list and adding viewpoints on what needs to be there and what doesn't. Is there anything that you both could add? Like for instance if you have two viewpoints of something, you can include that discussion in the article so to illustrate that there are more than one viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with this in the wiki, as long as it's NPOV and neither viewpoints gets more coverage than the other. Does this spark any ideas with either of you? Inter\Echo 12:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The conflict 

message: Not you personally, but your actions. You have the power to screw everything up and I dont have the time or will to undo it and explain it. Go wild now and delete it all, I give in.
--OrbitOne 08:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I direct your attention to the section directly above this one. Can you guys discuss my proposals there? And also, either Aaron doesn't understand what OrbitOne is saying or he doesn't want to. It appears to me that you're both talking to eachother without talking to eachother, if you know what I mean. I propose that we don't demand anything from eachother and try to discuss content, since everything else seems to fail. Let's focus on the content. Inter\Echo 11:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's a bit of a shame you see it that way. There are always patience and discussion in my world. I notice Aaron hasn't commented on this. Any thoughts Aaron? Inter\Echo 19:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've noticed that what I say usually isn't commented by both of you, just one. This section however is and I think that is a little progress. But there's obviously misunderstandings going on here as I get the impression that the both of you are trying to seriously write a good article, but neither of you understand what the other really wants. And this I feel is the crux of the problem. So let's try a different approach. What about making two articles, /temp1 and /temp2. Aaron does it like he wants in temp1 and OrbitOne does it like he wants in temp2. Then we look at each article and discuss how to merge them. Is that an idea? Oh and Aaron, about the personality comment I made, what I meant was that I thought you had a more personal dispute with how OrbitOne acted, while OrbitOne seemed to focus more on what content the article was supposed to have. Nothing else. :) And I see now that I was mistaken, as it appears to me that both of you are more concerned about the content than anything else (which is good!). Anyway, that is my idea. Tell me what you think. Inter\Echo 13:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediations 

message: Made changes to main page. Removed "two versions" tag.  Go crazy!brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: Hello there. I have been thinking, this article seems a bit bare-bones, if you get what I mean. The Infantilism article (which is related), is quite extensive, but by comparison the Sissy Baby article is fairly small and insignificant. Any brainstorming or research into possible additions to the article would be nice. The general psychological/feminization/submissive aspects would be good areas to start, as well as the role of dresses, petticoats, lace, etc. etc.
Also, might it be appropriate to create an article about Sissy Becky's site? I am not sure how extensive the membership or knowledge of the site is, but it seems to be fairly popular from my experiences. Just putting up a bit of speculation there.
--Tobias 03:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not questioning the validity of this material, but it still needs references, as some of this stuff is far-out enough to make one wonder. It's an understatement to say that solid references would greatly enhance the quality of this piece. --DanielCD 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Expansion/New Article Creation? 

message: I ran a Google search for the phrase "sissy baby," having few relevant results. I suppose that the term could possibly be legitimate, though only through use by an unsizable group who identifies with this type of paraphilia, in which case I have no problem with this article sticking around. However, unless someone can locate enough valid support to act as foundation for this article in the first place, then it's probably better off being deleted, as it is otherwise irrelevant (Wikipedia already has an article on infantilism) and manages to present itself rather poorly. Could the editors possibly focus on providing some citations or general resources? If not, then please consider deleting or merging this article with infantilism. Grendel 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Legitimacy