Talk:Personal lubricant

message: "Personal lubricant" is a ridiculous euphemism; does that really need to be the title of this article? I would suggest the more straight-forward and accurate "sexual lubricant".--Ericjs (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "personal lubricant" 

message: Sounds like another shitty PR company has started vandalizing for cash.
"In 2012, a company called Simply Solutions released a new formulated oil-based lubricant called Simply Slick that was tested through FDA approved clinics and confirmed to be the world's only oil-based lubricant safe for use with condoms.[5] The data obtained during the analysis of Simply Slick Personal Lubricant did not reveal any evidence of deterioration to latex-based or non-latex based condoms. Simply Slick was also clinically confirmed to be the world's only lubricant that contains antimicrobial properties. The oil-based antimicrobial lubricant is made from organic ingredients and was confirmed to kill yeast, bacteria, and fungus.[6]
"
: Good catch.  It has been removed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid sounding like  "another shitty PR company", we'd need citations from published third-party reliable sources, rather than from material hosted on Simply Slick's website (though the links don't seem to work anyway). And given the claims being made, the sources would almost certainly have to comply with WP:MEDRS guidelines. And even then, inclusion would be dependent on sourcing establishing that this lubricant is indeed of the significance claimed - we aren't going to repeat claims of this being the 'worlds only' anything without darned good independent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Please see the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines - rather than editing the article yourselves, you should make any proposals here. Firstly though, you'll need to provide working links to the necessary sources - and as I've already explained, to indicate the significance of the lubricant, we'd need third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: What part of the phrase 'third-party sources' do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

text: If you are incapable of understanding what 'third-party sources' means, I suggest that you find someone who does, and let them continue this discussion. I'm not going to waste any more time repeating myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Personal lubricant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516092406/http://www.ccof.org/press060204.php to http://www.ccof.org/press060204.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , regarding this, why do you think that "surgical lubricants" should be mentioned in the lead? It is not WP:Lead material. And do stop stating that things you add should not be removed without WP:Consensus; that is not true. Furthermore, you have been warned enough about overtagging. You are reminding me of User:Leprof 7272. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked you a simple question. Why do you think that "surgical lubricants" should be mentioned in the lead? The WP:Lead is for summarizing the article's most important points. It is not for material not covered lower in the article or for the article's less important points. If you want that changed, you can make your case at the WP:Lead talk page. WP:Overtagging is disruptive, as you have been told by more than one editor. And per WP:Preserve, any content that should be in this article should be preserved. Your threats bore me. I would not get reprimanded whatsoever at WP:ANI, but you can try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgical lubricants 

message: Astroglide redirects here now, but there is virtually nothing about the product line.  Expand or not?--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 03:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astroglide? 

message: cornstarch needs mention, it has backing studies 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:319E:F846:6405:AF86 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  cornstarch needs mention 

message: Can we use aquafield lubricant gel to lick pussy 37.121.198.2 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavour aquafield gel