User talk:ShockerHelp

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indie Spotlight. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Thread

Hi. I just wanted to inform you that a thread has been started at AN/I in regard to your recent edits on Indie Spotlight. You are, of course, welcome to make comments there. - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

Why are you striking out text within this article? --Onorem ♠Dil 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content struck was irrelevant to the topic, or obviously false, with no verification to suggest otherwise.ShockerHelp (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at one of the references would lead me to disagree, but I don't have time to look into it more at the moment. I'll have to look again in a bit. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shocker Toys' webstore (http://www.shockertoys.com/store.php) does not include the two convention exclusives as part of the proposed Indie Spotlight line of action figures. The Shocker Toys' website product page (http://www.shockertoys.com/products.php) does not include them as part of the proposed Indie Spotlight line of action figures. Indeed, the description from the product page ("Indie Spotlight will feature 20+ pts of articulation in every 6"-8" inch scaled figure.") would suggest that a Maxx Mini figure (~2") and an unarticuated Scud statue would clearly not be part of the theoretical line which is the topic of the article. The inclusion of the "Shoulder Action Figure" in the History section seems equally out of place. These were never released, and they had nothing to do with the proposed line of Indie Spotlight action figures. ShockerHelp (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These other toys were only brought up after WP:Crystal was raised in the delete article discussion. They are irrelevant. ShockerHelp (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI's definition of a Citation: A citation is a reference to a source (not always the original source), published or unpublished.--JMST (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker Toys

ShockerHelp Please stop removing all links from Shocker Toys without posting to the discussion page to come to a concensus! Also you made the reference section all messed up with duplicate links.--JMST (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverts and Unreliable sources

There's nothing wrong with quoting their website(a first party source), as long as it's made clear that it is from their website. For example,

On January 12th, Shocker confirmed that the series has left the factory and will be shipping soon

Would not be appropriate, as the first-party source is, as you said, unreliable, and is POV in their favor. However,

On January 12th, Shocker announced on their website that the series has left the factory and should be shipping soon, saying...

would be fine, because it is simply a statement of fact. The quote appears on Shocker's website, and Wikipedia would simply be documenting that, not what it actually claims. I removed the "music personalities" statement because "manufacturing" is in the present tense, and Shocker is no longer making the Gwar figure. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I would leave off all together that Shocker has announced that the series has left the factory until a reliable, non-first party source could confirm it. Since only Shocker Toys has said that the series would be shipping in December, and now they are saying that they shipped in January, I think it is safe to say that the announced shipping in December clearly did not happen. ShockerHelp (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shocker Toys Reverts

You seem to have a habit of reverting any changes people make to the Shocker Toys article. Thank you for correcting any punctuation or grammar problems I may have made, but the info I included is perfectly valid and should be kept. There is no need to immediately remove anything you deem unneccesary. I know ST has a history of announcing product that was not or has not been released, but the Mallow section should be kept for now. If, say, in 6 months there is no evidence of the line ever being released then it could be reverted, but please leave it for the time being. It is something that was not officially announced (in any major way) until a few days ago, and there is enough output such as the prototype and designs that it could be a section, as the Indie Spotlight and Shockini lines are included (and rightly so). According to Shocker, the figures displayed at NYCC were the finished product, though the rest of the figures weren't made in time. Thanks. Friginator (talk)

Okay, please refrain from edit warring, and immediately reverting any changes. My changes were not solely based on presumptions, (save for one sentence fragment), so please, only revert that which you see as specifically violating policy, instead of reverting the whole edit. Also, please use talk pages. If you have a problem, discuss it without further edit warring. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about you stop immediately changing my edits. Works both ways. We don't know what will happen with the line six months from now. So, stop trying to predict it in wiki articles, please. ShockerHelp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be snarky about it. All I'm saying is that reverting everything immediately isn't how Wikipedia works. If you think something violates policy, please remove it instead of reverting the whole edit. I'm not predicting anything. Shocker is planning to release a product, so that's what I wrote. If you don't like the phrasing, change it. Edit warring and being rude to other editors doesn't help anything. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Onorem ♠Dil 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ToxicAvengerShockini.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:ToxicAvengerShockini.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ShockerHelp. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ShockerHelp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]