Talk:Bondage hood

message: I know that you feel that the image is fair use.  Just because it was a bonus image on a DVD doesn't mean it can be used anywhere.  It is on the DVD so that people will buy the DVD.  We haven't bought the DVD.
You quote:
"This image is a bonus software feature included on the DVD Xtreme Desires - it is a screenshot from the movie of the same name.  Photographer: Tanya Hyde Copyright © 1999 by Fraserside Holdings Ltd."
It is copyrighted, and not the kind of image that we use on Wikipedia.  If you want to use this image, or any copyrighted image, including your own copyrighted image, you have to get express permission from the copyright owner, and they have to offer it into the public domain.  This copyrighted image is not in the public domain, and you haven;t given us any indication, or proof that you have gotten permission from the copyright owner.  
Atom 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image again

message: Discussion from User talk:Cunard#Bondage hood:
Cunard, I appreciate your attention to the matter. Rklawton pointed out at ANI that it's not such a big deal, but I do have a problem with reams and reams of text without verification (and responded there--feel free to weigh in). Before you know it we have an essay or a fansite. But while you and I were out, an IP with a familiar voice came along. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have reported him for violating the 3RR and will assess the notability later. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I haven't been able to find sources for bondage hood. I agree that a third AfD per Wikipedia:Verifiability is warranted if sources cannot be found. However, a redirect to Hood (headgear) or Bondage (sexual) may be better since this is a valid search term. I have implemented the redirect to Bondage (sexual). If the redirect is undone, we can discuss with those who disagree on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The editor has promised sources, so lets just wait. Besides, most of the edits don't look particularly controversial. Search Google images for bondage hoods and you'll see a lot of illustrations for the variations the editor describes - with the point being that these edits shouldn't really be considered any more controversial than "the sky is blue on a clear day." Rklawton (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to an edit summary of theirs, "You clearly know nothing about this subject, you are merely being disruptive. External references are forthcoming. A lot of this stuff is fairly self-evident anyway. I'd upload more pictures to illustrate, but the admins won't let me." I wish I had as much faith as you have! But what is wrong with them waiting to add the material until they collected the sources? In the meantime we had an article of some 10,000 bytes with one source, a "Challenging, erotic, pseudo-autobiograpy detailing the changing perspectives of a disabled, middle-aged female psychotherapist" published on Lulu, and a lot of detail that without verification is little more than trivia. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text: *
This reference is not suitable in establishing notability or providing verifiability because the publisher Lulu is a self-publishing company. Lulu was deemed by a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Lulu.com published books to be insufficient to verify content. An editor noted there that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia."I ask anyone who disagrees with the redirect to discuss here before restoring an unsourced article. If reliable sources can be found to source the article and are added to the article, I have no prejudice to undoing the redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect of unsourced article 

message: The problem with this and gimp mask redirecting to Bondage (BDSM) is that these devices are not actually discussed on the article. If we cannot find a place to direct to which does discuss them I think we should make a new article.
Something better than nothing, surely. Ranze (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does indeed seem absurd that we can't find sources to support this article for such a common and popular BDSM device, particularly when a Google search for the term yields page after page of links to shopping sites selling the things. I've made a request for help on this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

text: That's much better. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration discussion

message: * a section on hoods in a mainstream-published BDSM sex guide: 
* ditto here: , pages 154 and 155 are devoted to hoods
* Various mainstream news stories with the words "gimp mask" in the title:
** https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/18/santa-in-a-gimp-mask-tony-ourslers-creepy-christmas-greeting
** http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/man-in-gimp-mask-and-wetsuit-let-off-after-trespassing-in-explosives-factory/news-story/fcc1423f5fcce9d06f3075e66b530c9c
** http://www.laweekly.com/arts/brad-pitt-wears-a-gimp-mask-and-kisses-a-dolphin-in-his-lost-film-debut-video-4473951
** http://www.npr.org/2014/05/24/315251305/bring-out-the-gimp-the-man-behind-the-mask-in-pulp-fiction
** and this: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/438928/Jodie-Marsh-dominatrix-Zoo-magazine , with title "'I have a gimp mask' Jodie Marsh unleashes inner dominatrix in sex toy revelation"
** and also, tragically, stories like this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gimp-mask-man-dies-after-7311708
* this news story, where the image of a bondage mask is used as vandalism: http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/braddon-mhr-brett-whiteleys-election-signs-vandalised-on-tasmanias-west-coast/news-story/112e8bea8e1a8962b15fb91f55fa0614
* another tragic mention here, on page 130 of 
That, I hope, should be at least enough to establish notability. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential references 

message: I've now created a stub article, based on some of the references above. The references not yet used can hopefully be used to expand the article later. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article re-created