Talk:Rubber and PVC fetishism

message: Why would you have a picture like this on an article were anyone could visit? It seems to me that the picture in this article shows a little too much skin. Some child under the age of 16 could go on the article if he wanted to. 12.73.120.203 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you're writing from, but in London you can see more skin than that whenever the weather gets warm enough. --Taxwoman 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My strategy would be more like moving large chunks of text out of the article and into the talk page because they are probably OR. Lotusduck 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?!!!!! 

message: i searched rubberman and got redirected here. i thought rubberman was a superhero, and was expecting that, though instead came to this page. i jut found it surprising lol, expecting a superhero, instead finding a fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briefranch (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Plasticman. BMK (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the hell 

message: The editor(s) so interested in keeping this original research article have 24 hours to produce a single reliable source. That is all I want. After that it gets merged back into the "Garment Fetishism" article. NeoFreak 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not threaten to violate WP:Point.--Taxwoman 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to make a point, I'm giving the chance for reliable sources to be found in order to verify this article. I'd just revert again, as is my right within policy, but I don't want to break 3RR for any reason except the most obvious and belligerent of vandalism. NeoFreak 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posibly if NeoFreak would be good enough to source his "policy compliant" article adequately, the references could be used elsewhere.  Or does he think that most of his article should be deleted? --Holdenhurst 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article should be deleted, yes. I haven't done so because the fetishes are clearly real even though their prior articles were not properly attibuted. The mention and brief desciption in an umbrella article was, what I thought to be, a decent compromise until the old articles could be sourced. NeoFreak 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to waste my time waiting and waiting and waiting for people to add a single source to their particular fetish's article. If you want add material and you want it to stay then you needs to attribute it. That's not my rule, that's wikipedia's rule, one that people often seem to think doesn't apply to "their" article. If and when a source is found the article can be put right back without any loss of content. Deletions are a different matter and for teh aformentioned reason not the same as a redirect. NeoFreak 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't deleted anything. I want these articles to be sourced. 24 hours is not unreasonable. These articles have been unsourced since they were created and nobody ever bothered to add any real refs or citations. As soon as some sources are found it takes a total of 4 mouse clicks to restore the articles to their previous form. Nothing is being lost here, this is just a case of an editors that feels that policy doesn't apply to her and as seems to believe that she somehow owns these articles. NeoFreak 18:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bald statement that editors have 24 hours (your deadline, not consensus) to produce cites otherwise you will merge it (and remove the article as an independent article) is tantamount to a statement of intent to delete, really. I'm thinking, a week to ten days is reasonable; the article doesn't contain huge amounts of information or "dense" volumes of claims, so sourcing should be as above, readily possible. I've given how I see it. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your honest opinion. The problem is this article has gone unsourced for 4 and a half years. Years. It's been tagged as unreferenced for almost 6 months. The interested editors have shown zero interest in finding any reliable sources in that time. I'm not trying to delete the article, as I've already said as soon as refs are found the article can be restored with no pains at all. Consensus is not needed to enforce policy, that's why its policy. I don't want to be totally unilateral in my redirect though, you and others have shown alot of resistence to the immediate merge. I'll seek a third opinion and go from there. NeoFreak 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 hours 

message: It sounds to me like plenty of time has been given for sourcing to be provided, not just "24 hours". Sourcing is a requirement, not a nicety. Like NPOV, it's not something to be done before a Featured Article nomination or that's just nice when someone can get to it, it's required from the very first edit that creates an article. If this article cannot be sourced (as appears to be the case, since adding one single source would end the controversy), it needs merging or deleting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I'd like to keep this up in 3O for just a litte longer to get a greater exposure before making any merges (unless you do it yourself). NeoFreak 00:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article has been delisted from the 3O page as per SOP. I'm remerging the page. NeoFreak 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The catsuit is latex, identifiable by the typical glued seams, for example near the depticted lady's shiny stomach area. The boots are plastic, PVC in all likelyhood. Metals like nickel and brass tend to stain latex garments with light colors, but metal zippers in dark rubberwear with thicknesses > 0.2 mm are not a serious problem. --79.250.236.253 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I see nothing for clear plastic. Or is that another article? I am thinking of clear plastic clothing and clear plastic raincoats  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.129.90 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetish in clear plastic? 

message: Folks: I have a fetish in clear plastic clothing. I would like to discuss it here, but I am unclear whether to put my story
here on this article or the one on clothing fetishism. I am making the same inquiry on the talk page for that as well. Or shall I create a separate article for clear plastic fetishism without trying to fit it in either here or in clothing fetish.
I have a fetish that involves wearing crystal clear plastic raincoats in the rain (with clothes on underneath; not naked). I also like to make and wear clear plastic outer clothing with fiber optics and lights sewn in them and wear them out on the town in the evening. If you are in Bellingham, Washington, you can see me. You can also see pictures of myself wearing my clear plastic on clearplastic.com here on the internet. Any suggestions? Thanks Allyn (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am willing to add material for clear plastic fetishism 

message: Hi everyone, I'm creating the catalan version of this article (and also from the stuff in the Italian, French and Spanish version) and I'm really dissapointed about the quality of it. I think it has a lack of objectivity and it's poor of contents. It could be better.--Ignasipuig (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I must agree! Being a rubberist myself there are many ways this article could be improved: 1)remove the overlap with PVC and set up a dedicated article about rubber; 2)stress the sensual aspect of fetishism more, away from SM-imagenary; 3)stress in how many different ways rubberists can live their love for rubber - no two are the same, really; 4)stress the positive aspects of rubber fetishism. Overall, a redo of the article is in order I think!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaucuko Amanto (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by all means, let's do a propaganda article for the wonders of rubber fetishism.  If you've got WP:reliable sources for how great rubber and PVC fetishism is, by all means trot them out and let's see how "neutral" and "unbiased"  they are. BMK (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the quality of this article 

message: I've moved this article to Rubber and PVC fetishism: not all fetishized rubber clothing is unvulcanized latex: materials such as neoprene rubber or mackintosh material are also the subject of this fetish. -- The Anome (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Rubber and PVC fetishism" 

message: The section "latex-look-alike materials" I think has good information but is perhaps mislabeled. This article is about both rubber and pvc fetishism, and I think the organization of it feels a little disjointed. 161.97.199.59 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of article 

message: ‌ Microwave.mp4 ðe Þ Fan (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  yall forgor about ðe game changed :skull: