Talk:Shocker Toys/Archive 3

Discussions

Again no one is discussing changes here as it is stated that must be done first. Adding nonsense to this page to turn it into some kind of bomb against the company is highly against the Wiki rules. I think a lock should be placed on this dead horse or it should be deleted if chaos cannot be turned into order. Also ShockerHelp and Friginator seem to be back to the old tricks of skewing the article under the guise that he/she is a genuine person looking out for the best interest of this article, a savior if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.234.34 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are making the same edit repeatedly, and it is obviously controversial. I was planning to revert it myself, but someone else beat me to it. Please reach consensus here before deleting the material again. Your claim that these are not "real awards" and "real classified websites" in your change comments, and I can't even tell what you mean by that. And if you're going to use the template you're using, please include the proper info that the template requests (an explanation of your conflict of interest.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please remember to be civil per WP:CIV. You are clearly not assuming good faith per WP:AGF, so please make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia policies before posting. Insulting and attacking wikipedia editors is counterproductive and can result in being blocked. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Have removed 2 items from "awards and recognition",

-Top Five Exclusive Items SDCC 09, Fifth Place - Metalocalypse vinyl figure set -An October 2009 issue of ToyFare praised Shocker Toys, saying, "The company was once best known for being plagued by delays and other problems, but their Indie Spotlight line and new super-poseable Mallows artist figures are both genuinely top-notch." I don't think this article needs to include every mention or coverage the company receives, that's going a bit overboard. Both items are purely opinions from the writers, and do not represent factual information. The other awards have been voted for by people, and seem more valid and worthwhile.SWH (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. ToyFare is a very notable publication. And saying that the reviews have been negative is just plain untrue. Most reviews I've seen have praised the figures, and very few have reported that they have broken easily. You seem to just be removing all the positive information from the article, which isn't helpful. Wikipedia records the positive along with the negative, and it's important to be balanced, especially with people's personal opinions being so divided. Friginator (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SWH here, in that the mention in Toyfare isn't appropriate to the section. Perhaps it could be incorporated elsewhere in the article? ShockerHelp (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a mention in an article, no matter how notable the publication, does not fall under awards and recognition. Yes, Toyfare knows they exist. Aside from that, the mention adds nothing in relation to this section of the article. Work it into another portion of the article, but it doesn't fit where you are putting it. ShockerHelp (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this needs proper citation beyond just "an October 2009 issue of Toyfare." ShockerHelp (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Friginator, it doesn't matter how notable the publication is, the ToyFare mention is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. I don't see any need to work it in to the article anywhere else, as it is simply one writers opinion, and offers no sort of factual information. It is important to remember that the Wikipedia article needs to remain neutral, it isn't here to be offering "positive" or "negative" opinions, only factual information. I agree with ShockerHelp removing the line about the "general" nature of the reviews, as in either case it is irrelevant.211.27.89.47 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the line mentioning "generally positive reviews" in the Indie Spotlight section. I've seen both positive and negative reviews. To characterize the reviews as either is too close to doing research on our parts. ShockerHelp (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have once again removed the Geeks Of Doom blog about top 5 convention items from the awards section, as this is one persons opinion posted on a blog. Writing a top 5 list on a blog does not constitute a legitimate award, and does not need to be included here. This article is not here to include links to any time someone says something nice about Shocker, it is to provide factual information on the company.SWH (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Geeks of Doom award is worth mentioning, in my opinion, so I'm adding it back. But Toyfare named it one of their top 10 things of the month, and gave it significant praise. That's worth mentioning. SWH, I'm really starting to wonder if you're just taking out the positive aspects of the article at this point. And 211.27.89.47-- I know that Wikipedia shouldn't give positive or negative opinions, but recording the reception and reponse to the article's subject is important. ToyFare is one of the most recognized publications when it comes to toys. I can see why ShockerHelp thinks it should be in a different section, but what better section is there other than one that is specifically intended to list examples of awards and recognition? Maybe if it was phraised differently? As in, say, "The October 2009 issue of ToyFare named Shcoker Toys one of its top 10 favorite things of the month," or something like that. Most of the response Shocker Toys has gotten has simply been on internet sites, so showing that it has gotten mainstream praise is important. Friginator (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with SWH regarding the Geeks of Doom blog mention. We deleted several "worst of" mentions because they were single-person posts on a blog; it's unbalanced to include a fifth-best single-poster blog mention. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Friginator, the Geeks of Doom blog does not offer any sort of factual information, nor does it amount to anything more that an individual opinion. Likewise, the ToyFare article does not offer any sort of factual information relevant to the article, it is yet again an individuals opinion on the items. "Significant praise" from an individual is still just opinion, it does not represent factual information nor a representation of overall reception or response. It is not a remarkable achievement that a toy company should be mentioned in a toy magazine. This is not a PR piece for Shocker, and it does not need to include individuals saying nice things about their products. Reception and response from individuals is not relevant to the article. The other awards included have been voted for, and thus represent a measured form of response. Unless you can offer a valid reason to include these 2 items, please stop placing them back in repeatedly, as it has been agreed by everyone else that these do not warrant inclusion.SWH (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Toyfare pick DOES represent a response to the company's product. I know perfectly well that this isn't a PR piece. But it's not an attack piece either. It's not just a "mention" in ToyFare-- It's their pick for the toy line of the month. You seem to be focusing on the negative attention that the company gets, yet none of the positive response that they've had after releasing the toys. All of those awards for worst company or minifigure line are from 2006 or earlier, yet major praise after releasing Indie Spotlight and Mallows from a major magazine as their favorite toy line of the month isn't appropriate? If you want to remove every award decided by just one person that's fine, but the ToyFare pick is something that should stay.

I think that if the Toyfare mention is included, it still needs to be properly cited. Who wrote the article, etc. Is it an article? Is it from the letters page? Who knows? I don't read Toyfare. Whoever didn't sign the above comment says something was picked as toyline of the month (Indie Spotlight? Mallows?). The article now says that Shocker Toys is one of the Toyfare top ten things of the month. Are these separate mentions? What number in the top ten? Lots of clarification needed. Also, if it is just one person writing an article, expressing an opinion, how is that any different than the MWC awards? If the Toyfare mention is included, the removed MWC awards should also be included. MWC is arguably a more respected source of information on toys than Toyfare. He is often quoted as an expert source, such as this recent Playthings article (http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6674011.html). Toyfare is best known as just a humor magazine concentrating on fart jokes. Include one, include the others. For now, I'm removing the Toyfare mention. ShockerHelp (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's cited now. It's from page 10 of issue 146 of ToyFare magazine, dated October 2009. It's from a segment called "the Hot Plate," in which the editors of the magazine name their top 10 favorite things of the month in different categories such as toys, comics, dvds, etc. That particular issue, Shocker Toys was listed as the toy line of the month. The magazine praised Shocker Toys for Indie Spotlight and Mallows. Friginator (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I make changes without another editor ShockerHelp acting childish and calling my changes junk? I have made good changes that are supported by fact and truths and I think lashing out due to the article becoming less skewed towards a hatred of Shocker Toys is uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Mallows

Should the Mallows section be moved into the convention exclusive section? They have been marketed and sold only as convention exclusives. They aren't in any stores. There are no non-exclusive versions. They match the description of the other items included under the convention exclusive section. So, I'm thinking it should be, at least until/if they become available more widely. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a plain white Mallow that was never an exclusive, and they're all available on the company's website, so yes. It should have its own section. Friginator (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But where else is it sold? Their other convention exclusives are also sold on their website. It isn't a regular retail product, nor even an e-tailer product. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They're sold at various other online stores, but like Indie Spotlight, it's unclear whether or not actual stores have them or not. Not all the figures released so far were sold at conventions, so the line isn't a "limited convention exclusive." Friginator (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What? They're sold at online stores that may or may not have them? How does that make any sense? Can you link some of these "various" online stores? You're statement is incorrect; all the Mallow figures released so far have been sold exclusively at conventions or the Shocker website. BBTS has some Mallows on pre-order. They are specifically labeled exclusives. They are left over convention product. The Mallows are a limited run item that have, so far (and that is all that can be dealt with in a Wikipedia article), been sold at conventions with the left overs going on the Shocker online store, or later to BBTS. It's the exact same thing that has been done with the other items listed under convention exclusives. There may be plans to eventually get them into stores, but as of right now, they are not a regularly distributed product (contrast with Indie Spotlight which is distributed through Haven). Wikipedia is not a predictor of the future. Cite and include something that indicates the company's intentions for the product, if you like. But right now, this is what they are: limited run items sold at conventions. ShockerHelp (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not ALL convention exclusives. They're a seperate line of toys, some of which are exclusives. I don't see what problem you have with what I'm saying. The entire line of toys shouldn't be limited to that section. Friginator (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So they're not sold in any physical stores. They're not sold in any online stores (other than the Shocker website). They are sold only at conventions. What am I missing? Which ones can I buy at someplace other than a convention? Which ones are not exclusive to conventions? The reality now is that the line is sold exclusively at conventions, despite whatever marketing term is applied to some of the Mallows and not others. If that changes later, the article can be updated to reflect the change. ShockerHelp (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ShockerHelp. So far the few Mallows released have fallen under the category of being convention exclusives. If at a later date the figures are more widely distributed, and are thus differentiated from the other convention exclusives then that would warrant their own section. SWH (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, Indie Spotlight is a convention exclusive. I have no idea if any physical store has either Indie Spotlight or Mallows. There are multiple items, some of which are not sold at conventions, yet the entire line is a convention exclusive? It's a line of toys they're producing, along with Indie Spotlight. It should be in its own section. Friginator (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. Indie Spotlight has a distributor, Haven Distributors, as I mentioned previously. Mallows do not. Indie Spotlight were available to order online before their sales debut at a convention. Every Mallow was first offered for sale at a convention. That is still the only way (aside from the Shocker website) to get them. What evidence do you have that Mallows are a regular retail product? So far, all you have said is that you don't know if they are in any stores. That's hardly strong evidence for your assertion that they are not only sold at conventions. Can you point to a single online store that carries them? You keep saying that some Mallows are not sold at conventions. Yet you can't point to a single example of any Mallow sold outside of a convention (or the Shocker website). Every released Mallow has been advertised for sale at a convention. I have seen them all for sale at this year's SDCC. There is simply no evidence that they are available anywhere else. It's not a toyline that Shokcer Toys is "producing." It's a toy line that has already been produced. These are items created in the hundreds. The production process is not a drawn out affair. They're already made. They're already out. They've been for sale. Exclusively at conventions. You seem to be confusing the application of the marketing term "convention exclusive" with how convention exclusive is being used in the article. They are convention exclusives because they are only sold at conventions, and then later on Shocker Toys' online store when there are leftovers; just like the items which are labeled "convention exclusives" for marketing reasons. ShockerHelp (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards and Recognitions

The following below were added and then removed after a person on a forum went off on an attack on Shocker Toys. They came to wiki and removed the links to justify showing the company in a bad light the discussions can be seen at criticalmess.net where the person removing the wiki links came from and is a member. Why should people with personal vendettas against Shocker Toys be allowed to come to wiki and alter the page to suit their needs? Isn't that why wiki is monitored? I though there were checks in place to defend against this sort of thing. Also ShockerHelp is not associated with Shocker Toys but the same forum and seeks to alter the page to skew the company into a bad light again. An editor already approved the 1st link added and two more were added for positive awards then this person came in and removed all three. I think ShockerHelp and the person removing the 3 links should be looked at closely and watched on wiki as their actions seem questionable.

• 2009 Articulated Discussion, The Articulated Accolades, Maxx Honorable mention.[25]
• 2009 OAFE ToY of the year, Best Toy Line, Honorable mention for Indie Spotlight.[26]
• 2009 Toy Ark Misc toy of the year, winner The Maxx from Indie Spotlight[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Without taking a side in the brunt of this discussion, I will note that this above comment and ther elated change comments reflects some misunderstanding on the nature of Wikipedia. Yes, Bilby is an editor. So is ShockerHelp - while Bilby may be more experienced, ShockerHelp is no more or less an editor than he is. And for the purposes of this article 173.54.237.167 is also just as much an editor (I only give that caveat because there are some other items on Wikipedia that can only be edited by registered users, not IP users). So saying that an editor approved something does not mean that some other editor can't disapprove. I'm not sure what you mean by the wiki being "monitored"; generally, its all just in the hands of the various editors unless someone choses to escalate a concern to one of the formal methods of addressing such things. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (Added later: By "elated change comments" above, I meant "related change comments"; it was a mere typo that suggested something which I did not intend to suggest. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) )

Please stop your completely unfounded personal attacks on me. I have never been to criticalmess.net. I am not skewing the article. As you become increasingly agitated with not being able to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle, your grammar patterns seem to be matching those of other Shocker Toys/ Geoff Beckett sock puppets. Is this a coincidence? ShockerHelp (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to be clear that my comment isn't directed at NatGertler. Also, 173.54.237.167, isn't that in New Jersey, home of Shocker Toys? Just another coincidence, I'm sure.... ShockerHelp (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the proper citations needed and ShockerHelp if you are an honest contributor you will leave the nuetral version all editors agreed upon and has remaind untouched for months now. The positive awards and such should remain as MCW's sites are no more then an average reviewer's site, he is not NBC news or ABC news or even the TIA making him less of a toy authority then you and me. Removing the positive awards obviously proves that ShockerHelp would rather this article be skewed towards negitive then neutral. As an editor myself I think that is not the point of Wiki and all sides should be viewed and heard. This link for this wiki page is also posted on forums where when changes are made it is joked around about showing that these changes are skewed for amusment and not to better the article. It also shows those involved with the changes are the people commenting on the changes on that website's forums bringing into question their COI here on this Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on me. I made edits. At least 3 other editors saw the edits and chose not to change them. Edits after mine were changed/reverted. Mine were not. Then you reverted my edits. It seems you decided to revert my edits solely on the basis that it was I that made them. That is wrong. Are you even reading my edits before you revert them? ShockerHelp (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No you edited links that editors approved and changed back please read the history, you do not even know when you are being corrected. I am not affiliated with Shocker Toys the company nor am I saying you are wrong I am simply showing my opinon that if all the negetive review links can remain why can't the positive. By you removing them you are saying it should be a one sided view and that is not what Wiki is about. I will not even sign into my account here as I do not want to be that involved in the whole thing except to show you that wiki articles should have a nice un-bias view. So again stop removing the good reviews as they are non-bias and they are not affiliated with Shocker Toys only showing their respect for their products after purchasing them and reviewing them. You really need to get some help ShockerHelp as you come here to make a company look bad, even taking their company name and adding it into your wiki member name. I think an admin or higher editor needs to really look into your actions and the fact that you link this page on other forums but claim not to be anyone from the forums who links it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone translate that for me, please? ShockerHelp (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure stop vandalizing the article and skewing it for your pleasure. The three links added have just as much right to be there as the other review and award links.

I think you're proving my point that you're not reading my edits. You're reverting edits I've made that have nothing to do with what you are taking issue with here. Oh, and consensus is clearly against you on that matter as well. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilby removed the 2009 award for the following reason: "Removed new "award" - the article specificly mentions they are improving, context which is lost here, and third in an award of questionable notability seems iffy"

Unfortunately, while they are 'improving' they have yet to claw their way out of the gutter, context has nothing to do with it. If they want the whole story it doesn't take much to click the link. Further 'third in an award of questionable notability' is a ridiculous notion, considering that the honorable mention (which is usually LESS than third place) is right below it, and the 'award of questionable notability' is mentioned at least five other times in the same section. Mister Blisterfists (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Mister Blisterfists

Yes, I did removed it, and an IP put it back. :) I'm not inclined to edit war, so I'm very open to discussion. I'm concerned about two issues. The first is, with respect, the notability of these awards have never been established. These are awards handed out by an online reviewer - they're not published except online, there is no editorial process, review board, or anything else you would normally expect in a significant awards process. It appears to me that a blogger who reviews toys nominates his best or worst - and while perhaps warranting a mention, I've never felt that there has been any real example showing that these awards are particularly notable. That said, consensus has been to keep them, and I'm happy to abide by consensus, although my understanding at one point was that we were going to include only the people's pick awards, and that seems to have changed somewhere along the line.

My second concern is that the award came with a discussion of how they had improved. That discussion is necessarily lost here. This, of course, is always a problem with lists of awards, and one I'd like to address separately, but the loss of that context is, I feel, telling. It looks like there has been no significant change between 2008 and 2009 when someone sees the list, yet that's not the case when you read the actual discussion. This list of "awards" has always made me very uncomfortable, from an NPOV perspective, but the loss of context makes me even more so. - Bilby (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the two positive awards listed previous to the one currently in question address your concerns. They provide a sense of context as to the development of the company. Should the entire section be stricken? All of the other awards/recognitions, in my view, share the same qualities that are creating concerns over notability. I'm on the side of keeping them. Really, if examined carefully, there isn't a single citation in the entire article that is from a really "reputable" source. But, it's what we have to work with, so I'm okay with it. I think overall, the section shows an accurate picture of the progression of the company. ShockerHelp (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Loath as I am to admit it, I have to agree with Shocker on this one. But I have to give you credit Bilby, that you've conceded to consensus, and I applaud that. Mister Blisterfists (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Mister Blisterfists

What is lacking is the context of the most recent award - it is in quite a different framework from the awards that preceded it. The difficulty remains that these are awards seemingly granted by a blogger - perhaps a notable one, but of that I'm unable to judge - which makes the whole section awkward. Indeed, the only award by a non-blog is the ToyFare one. I'm not sure what the fix is - perhaps prose, to give context, as I gather not including them at all is a difficult case to make. But while most of the article is fair, this last section doesn't read the same. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There you have it, I agree with Bilby that the only link with merit is the ToyFare one all the others are breaking the wiki rules like linking to the companies site or forums also. So let's either axe the section or leave the ToyFare link only. And ToyFare is a print publication which is where the award came from so ShockerHelp calling it an online blog is his/her own opinion and I am sick of seeing them here. Wiki is a source for info not speculations, opinions or hating on companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an expansion of the entire section beyond just a list is the solution. The Toyfare award may not be from an online source, but it has it's own set of problems. Toyfare is little more than a blog put in print. I don't see how that makes it a superior source in any way. Worse, Wizard/Toyfare have been embroiled in payola schemes since their inception. It's little more than a fanzine. ShockerHelp (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

Just a reminder to folks working on this article that, per WP:VANDAL, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So we can edit it back and forth? Can someone other then me and Shockerhelp step in make a judgement call so we do not continue go in circles. I agree that Mallows should be folded back into exclusives if ShockerHelp will agree that the three awards should remain as the other awards do. I think that is fair and both parties involved get a change to the article to better it. I see the reverts as a WP:PA

Are you kidding? Please bring as many as eyes as possible to what is going on here. It is abundantly clear who is engaging in personal attacks. And learn to sign your posts. ShockerHelp (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to see how a revert would qualify as WP:PA, as reverts address content, not contributor. One could violate WP:PA in the comment on a revert, I suppose, but I see no sign that ShockerHelp has done so; if you can point to such a comment, please do so.

As for the I'll-okay-your-change-if-you-okay-my-unrelated-one plan, that seems an inappropriate way of feigning consensus which would not serve to the good of Wikipedia. Either you feel his change is inappropriate or you do not. If you do not, then you should not stand in the way of it, and if you do, you should not let your stance be bought off by some boon to you. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the question of "So we can edit it back and forth?", no, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that such reversions do not constitute vandalism. Repeated re-insertions and reversions of the same material would fall more under the concept of edit warring. - Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, NatGertler. I am tired of the constant, baseless, silly accusations leveled against me by 173.54.237.167. Almost every edit contributed by 173.54.237.167 is accompanied by some random accusation that I am trying to skew the article. His/her latest comments are just bizarre. "Thw positive awards stay you have made no clear reason why they shouldnt beyond accusations that the sites are working with Shocker Toys which is unfounded and untrue" I didn't make the edit that includes the accusation he/she is referencing. I did agree that the sources were very weak and shouldn't be included. "Series2 was shown at SDCC so it was more then announced stop making it look like there isn't a series2 also stop deleting a well known source Washington Times article" I didn't delete a Washington Times source. Simply didn't happen. Is there a recourse when an editor seems unable to fully understand what is going on? 173.54.237.167 seriously seems to have reading comprehension difficulties, coupled with a paranoia that everyone is out to "get" his/her favorite company. ShockerHelp (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

editing conflict

We're having a large amount of edit warring between two editors here. I highly recommend they seek out a third opinion. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is only two qualified editors here Nat and Bilby the others including myself seem to be over opinionated and that is skewing the article. I think someone should come in tear this article down and rewrite it with only the true sourced items being kept then placing protection on it. This will continue to go on forever. Even when soemthing is backed up with fact it is removed by ShockerHelp or someone else. The ToyFare award is in print. The Mallows as exclusives only is a lie a link was provided showing they are in mass retail. What is next when they announce another license and the New York Times prints a story about it, it will be removed? Again this whole article goes against the wiki rules and I admit I have made mistakes here too. I do however agree with Nat that there should be a 3rd (not opinion) as that is not what wiki is about but a 3rd source who is (un-bias) and can put this article in the proper light even if it is stripped down to only a few sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, sign your edits, please. And once again, stop hurling insults at me. And once again, what are you talking about? The specific things you accuse me of removing from the article are in the article as it is right now. Try reading it before you make more of your baseless accusations. And yes, thank you for realizing that this will go on forever. That is the basic nature of Wikipedia. Articles will constantly be changed and updated. It's the way Wikipedia works. Try not to take such personal offense that whatever you've posted has been edited. Every time you make an edit, right under the "save page" button, it says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Take a deep breath and look at my edits with a clear mind. My last 3 edits have been: 1. A correction of the name of the award that another editor added, and correcting the citation to direct to the proper page. 2. An update of the release date of the Jack Staff figure, with citation. 3. An update of the History section with the inclusion of the hiring of Dave Ryan as a sales agent, with citation. How is any of that "skewing" the article? Yes, I edit a lot of what you contribute. Why? First, your writing is very sloppy. Your grammar and spelling are terrible. Just look at what I am responding to here. You literally can't get two words without a grammar error. Your deficiencies go beyond mere typos and mis-spellings. The sad truth is that your writing requires editing just to be understandable. Second, you don't seem to be reading the article, or understanding what you are reading, before you make edits. You add things that are already in the article. You delete things with citations. Third, you are confused about the nature of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia entry is not an ad for a company. You can't just include the positive things. Inclusion of negative things does not equal "skewing" the article. Of course there will be disagreements on content. That is why things are not set in stone, as you keep asking for things to be. ShockerHelp (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have mentioned several times the need to bring fresh eyes to this article. Please do. Do whatever you feel is necessary. If you think I am doing something wrong, please alert whomever you feel needs to know. If you think this article "goes against wiki rules," please do something about it. But let me remind you; it has been done before, and it didn't end the way you wanted. ShockerHelp (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk about personal bashing and insults. Do I have to take this? Isn't there some thing on Wiki that protect me from this? This article has become a joke! I am done here. And Thanks for discouraging a future editor of wiki. ShockerHelp is doing a great job of keeping people involved with wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you have been a subject of a personal attack, please review WP:PA to see what qualifies and how to respond. As for request for my help, I would prefer not to be drawn more into this article than I already am. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)