User talk:JMST

Welcome!

Hello I have been with wiki a short time and have contributed to a few articles (one deleted)lol. I am learning as I go and getting help from a few editors. I would like to keep expanding toy articles here on wiki that need better or more info. If you want to work with me on any articles let me know. And as for the stuff below that shows my newbie track record lol.--JMST (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

moved into its own section for clarity

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 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um yea we are the creators of the page and we are not editing but reverting back before the vandalizim took place as we were told to do so on the Wiki vandal page.--JMST (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

Hi. Now that the page has been raised at AN/I, I suggest you step back for a bit from it and the talk page, for long enough to see how things pan out. The other editors should be able to look after it for a bit. Generally speaking, you shouldn't revert other people's edits on the talk page of the article, but either way it is certainly best to take SheffieldSteel's advice and let things sit, otherwise you face a very real risk being blocked. - Bilby (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the page and added my apology for making the revert mistake. I will stay away for now and let the Admins handle the page. It seems the user ShockerHelp wanted this to happen and we fell into it. Thank you for the help I will wait and fix article after this has been resolved.--JMST (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Indie Spotlight

I have nominated Indie Spotlight, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Spotlight. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Your posts also imply that this is a shared account, which is not permitted Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shared account I used we instead of I by accident but did not correct when I saw it as I was told to back off during the Vandalizim which has gotten me no where and the Vandal seems to have won thank to the editors that were supposed to help.--JMST (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Toy, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Referance to lead paint in toys. --JMST (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Indie Spotlight. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

Hi. It seems to me that if you would like the article to have a shot at surviving AfD, we will need to trim it back to a well-referenced stub. At the moment it has a lot which does contravene WP:Crystal - for example, the reference currently saying that the first series is finished actually only refers to the prototypes being done. Thus any claims about what the series is becomes a problem, as they are really only predicting what it will be like. Things are much safer if they stay on the issue of development: it is reasonable, and not a problem with WP:Crystal, to discuss what has been announced and what has happened during development, as that isn't making any predictions. If this was done it would be brought back to about three paragraphs, but would include as sources the Washington Post article you found and the Playthings article.

The alternative, which would be my preferred solution, would be to develop an article on Shocker Toys. They do appear in the literature here and there, and I'd argue that they are sufficiently notable. Not massively so, but enough to warrant an article. In that case Indie Spotlight would become a redirect, and the brief (as it would still need to be culled as per above) content would be merged with it, but it could also include some of their other products.

Either way, I think it will need to be cut back to remove any crystal ball issues. You could also try AfD without culling, but for that you'll need a few more good sources. But you do have four more days to find them, especially if you state that this is your intent, as AfD gives you a bit of time. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Shocker Toys and seems they have been deleted on wiki before by a bunch of people who signed up and didn't like them. Even though the had tons of resources stating they were a notable company. which means as a novice I wouldn't dare write an article about them as it would cause a huge problem much like this article did. Someone experianced should write a Shocker Toys article if that is to happen and I def think it should be trimmed back I just don't know what to trim.--JMST (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing I add is good enough for you!--JMST (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that having added one poor article, your reaction to its iminent deletion is to add another rushed, poor quality article. That is starting to get disruptive. Mayalld (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow so then no one should try and make articles here! I just wanted to make a stub but then it got hit for expansion so why is that my fault??--JMST (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Shocker Toys

A tag has been placed on Shocker Toys, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Shocker Toys. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you have a look at how the rest of the references on the page are done - just a URL line provides virtually no information. Also virtually all of the sources you have provided are very weak - in it's current state, the shocker toys article would die at AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed and followed the way you did the refrences now. As for weak one is a direct review of the product, one states Shocker Toys along some other large toy companies noted on Wiki and one shows it direct from the comic con show source where it was sold. I will try and find better refrences for the rest but are we allowed to show Amazon links or stores or ebay to prove products exsist?--JMST (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That proves that adverts were placed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that proves the stores purchased the product from them after the shows they sold it at? Is that good or bad or can we use those ref. excuse my ignorance.--JMST (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Shocker Toys. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Shocker Toys. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shocker Toys

Hi! It looks like you've been having a rather frustrating introduction to Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Still, I've added most of what I have to the Shocker Toys article, and I'd be surprised if it continues to have notability concerns - at least three of them should be sufficient to satisfy WP:Note, but I'll guess we'll see how things go. I was planning to create the article, but generally on something like this I proceed slowly, and now that it exists it is worth making sure that it continues to stay there. That aside, I suggest that you take Mayalld's comments into account - he's an experienced editor who knows what he's talking about. :) I'm interested in seeing if he's happy with my changes, because if he is then it will probably be ok, and they should stick. Mayalld and Cameron Scott are actually being extremely helpful, even if it doesn't feel that way - while they don't see the company as notable, they're giving time for editors (us) to establish it one way or another.

If it is ok, notability should be less of a problem, and we can focus on adding material over time to extend the article. Once notability is established, it is reasonable to make careful use of primary sources (in this case press releases), so long as the wording is correct. Generally, though, you should stay clear of blogs, forums, wikis and anything which is user-submitted, as they aren't considered reliable, and therefore shouldn't typically be used (and unfortunately that includes YouTube). It might also be worth chasing up Tomart's #121, Lee's toy review #139 and Toyfare #83 - all three were mentioned in an interview as having covered Shocker Toys, but I don't know if they made a trivial mention or not. Anyway, hopefully we'll get this article established. :) - 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If the article stays then that makes me happy and I will continue to work on it. But that ShockerHelp person keeps vandalising everything I do so I guess I felt ganged up on. I will help make the article better as time goes on for now though I should back off as that user ShockerHelp will keep attacking all changes I make. Thank you for talking to me seems most just want to scold me lol. I will stay at Wiki and be happy now in editing with a bit more confidence. Oh I collect those toy mags you mentioned and maybe have some I can scan so how will I add them without the bot removing them? My 1st article Indie Spotlight will that be redirected to Shocker Toys?--JMST (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to scan them - if they have anything to say just add them anything worthwhile, and I can help with reference formatting. The assumption is that someone should be able to verify anything you add, typically by getting access to the sources themselves, so scans aren't needed and run into copyright issues anyway. - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we just quote them much like the Playthings article in their magazine?--JMST (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am but ShockerHelp keeps editing and erasing my signature!--JMST (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Shocker Toys

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shocker Toys, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination). Thank you. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?

Are you the same person who is posting company announcements as jmst on the Shocker Toys forum? 24.234.68.105 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No are you trying to tie me into the company somehow? Who are you to ask as an unkown IP? And better yet is ShockerHelp the same person from the Shocker Toys forum named Maxx_Fanatic who was banned and the man named Shane Heron or SWH from the Fwoosh forums from Australia out to destroy the Shocker Toys people for some unkown reason? I am just a girl who collects action figures and I am on their forums but not under this same name so if anyone is signed up under this name it is not me.--JMST (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I don't have an Australian IP, do I? Did you take your username from the jmst at Shocker Toys? Is jmst a reference to something well known that I am ignorant of? Seems odd to me that two people would choose it out of nowhere... 24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JMST is my initials in my name and have nothing to do with Shocker Toys. As I just stated that is not what I use at the forums of Shocker Toys. I also did not claim that you had an australian IP I can see your IP and I am not stupid. As far as I can see under Wiki definition you are a Sock Puppet here to sway the deletion vote of the Shocker Toys article.--JMST (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask that person over on the Shocker Toys' forum to stop using your name. Too much potential confusion. Oh, and who am I supposed to be a sock puppet for? 24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is using my name over there I am registered under a different name on their forums. As far as a sock puppet goes are you new to Wiki? Are you here to work on articles or start a new article or are you just here to support the deletion of the Shocker Toys article?--JMST (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, someone definitely was using that name earlier today. Now I can't check because my IP appears to be banned from their site now. Strange how that would happen.... 24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know but they do watch the article but refuse to work on it as to not violate the Wiki terms. I work on the article as well as other articles on wiki because I like to report things I think have notablity. Are you planning to write any articles here on wiki or add anything to the Shocker Toys article?--JMST (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that Shocker Toys banned me from looking at their site just because I asked a question about you, who isn't a part of the company? I haven't done anything else on wikipedia yet. How strange of them to do that...24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't control them and have only spoken to the admins there if I need some info or have a questions. If they did ban you could be because they thought you were with that ShockerHelp guy who has been having edit wars left and right here. So what brought you here to wiki?--JMST (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like toys alot. I go to wikipedia for everything. I saw the Shocker Toys article and started looking through the links because I saw the deletion thing. Now, I can't even check their own website. How can I make a decision to keep or not to keep when I don't have info? I can't even order any toys from them. 24.234.68.105 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but it is strange that my user name is the only time you have chosen to get involved on wiki. As for not being able to access their site maybe it is a ban in your area I would email them. And as for voting on deletion you have only made yourself known after the deletion article came up which would cast your vote as a suspiscious sock puppet vote.--JMST (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They ban whole areas of the country from looking at their website? Wow, that's crazy! I didn't vote yet, because I wanted to look into things and be informed. I noticed your name matched one I saw on their forums, so I thought I would ask. 24.234.68.105 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is where you come in as a conflict of interest. You are going not based on the article structure but as you just admitted based on info you find out about them. If editing the article or contributing you would find info about them and add it or edit it out if not a good enough reference. This is why if you vote it will be bias and skewed as you have so said yourself. I think you should skip this article and move on and maybe come back after it is cleaned up a bit more--JMST (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the links in the article to check things out. I thought it was supposed to work that way. I was going to vote to not delete it, but I guess I'll just go now, since you don't want me around. 24.234.68.105 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said they didn't want you around Im just a newbie like yourself on wiki. I think you could add good things to the Shocker Toys article and other toy articles if you are a collector yourself. I thought with everyone attacking me I had to go to but learned that is the way it is here. You can't tell who is here to hurt or to help with people abusing the system. So why don't you discuss what you think should be changed on the Shocker Toys article on the article talk page and we will work together on it?--JMST (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Me

Is there anyone here that wants to say hi or chat about articles to work on instead of bashing me for something.--JMST (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toys Article

I added the part about lead poisoning to the Toys main article awhile back. Does anyone have a list of all the products recalled for lead paint scares?

Block Figure Article

I am a bigger fan of block style action figures like kubriks or minimates and would like to start an article on them. Who would like to help me?--JMST (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out an article exists which I will work to expand.--JMST (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

Hi! Speedy Keep probably won't be possible - while it can be done, it can normally only be done where there is an obvious reason why the AfD should be closed, such as where it is quickly and convincingly shown that the subject is notable, and there is no room for disagreement, or where the article shouldn't have been taken to AfD (for example, where it had already been through AfD in the very recent past). In general, if there have been some reasoned delete arguments (and there have been) then the debate should probably run the full course. On the plus side, if consensus is to keep the article, then this is good, as the article won't need to go before AfD again for a long time. And if it fails, then fair enough - when the Indie Spotlight series comes out there'll be press coverage, and there may be call to try again.

More generally, you don't need to respond to everyone in the AfD. The process is good - I suspect it will be kept, but if not there's always Deletion Review if there are real problems with the debate. And I am generally really impressed with the closing admins - they know what they're doing, and should take everything into account. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well we have one more day AFD is a 5 day affair so I think its a keeper and hopefully those 2 sock puppets non user IPs don't count.--JMST (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JMST!

Hi, JMST. Thank you for the nice welcome to Wikipedia =) It's good to see you here to. Tell me know where I can help you out and we can stop all the haters and trolls from talking bad about Shocker Toys. Worldwarhulk (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can work on the Shocker Toys article but we have to follow wiki rules. How do you know about Shocker Toys?--JMST (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making me suspicious. You don't seem to be the same JMST as before. I can tell from your contribs that you're trying to recruit more friends. What's wrong with your old friends? Worldwarhulk (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What before? I am welcoming you to wiki as a fellow toy collector if that is what you are.--JMST (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "attempting to manufacture"

You are right that "Shocker toys doesn't make toys" isn't true, but it's not really an opinion either. As of 1/13/09 the Shocker website says they've shipped from the factories, so we have no reason to believe they aren't manufacturing toys. Toy Fair is a reputable source for a lot of things, but it doesn't prove they're making the toys, just that they're planning to make them. Shocker has shown prototypes for years, and we have yet to see anything on the shelves, though I wouldn't be surprised if we do soon. It's also arguable whether a limited run of convention exclusives counts as regularly producing toy lines, but that point isn't valid now that they have regular product. I understand you're a loyal fan of the company for some reason, but you don't have to personally attack other editors, like saying, "I would wait until the New York show to try and bring them down as you so desperately seem to want." There's no need to assume everyone is out to destroy Shocker Toys, and even if someone is it's not your problem, it's the company's. You're not their spokesperson, so please try to relax and assume good faith per WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. I'm glad someone is dedicated to creating a quality article, but you seem to be a bit overprotective, and it worries me when something as simple as a toy article is causing this much animosity. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, like they don't attack me or my opinions? You are major COI as you admitted on the Shocker Toys talk page, so there is no point in speaking with you.--JMST (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's my point. If you keep accusing people left and right, your experience on Wikipedia is going to be unpleasant. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place built on cooperation between editors, and there's a problem whenever two or more people aren't cooperating. The fact that you feel attacked is no excuse to violate wikipedia policy. Calling me a COI as if it's a bad thing doesn't help either. Just try to relax. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Friginator I have seen you on forums all pumped up to bring down Shocker Toys. How is that a fair enviroment on Wiki? maybe you should relax here and on other forums against Shocker toys. Out of curiosity what did they do to you? --JMST (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very critical of Shocker Toys' methods on other websites, but my personal opinions aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. It's for that reason that I don't try to add info on the company to the article that could be considered negative, because that would be POV. Discussing things (and often making fun of them) on forums and editing on Wikipeda are two completely different things. I'm not sure why you're looking at my other online activities, but what people talk about on other websites doesn't change the environment of Wikipedia. Like I originally said, try to focus on editing Wikipedia instead of accusing others, especially based on what they might have said somewhere else. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Friginator. But honestly making fun of a company trying hard to release a great toyline is not fun but very childish. They should all just hush up and wait and see. This is the final push if they don't see the light of day I move on, dissapointed but I move on. Some of these guys are like crazy people with stalker attitudes and posting everywhere they can to destroy this company somehow. They do know that Toys R Us and other big stores do not listen to forums or their rants. All I am saying is they should show a little respect as you have here at Wiki for a company trying to do the right thing after so many wrong things.--JMST (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

3RR warning

Indie Spotlight

AfD nomination of Indie Spotlight

October 2008

Citing sources

Indie Spotlight

Speedy deletion of Shocker Toys

Shocker Toys

Your recent edits

AfD nomination of Shocker Toys

Conflict of Interest?

Discussing Me

Toys Article

Block Figure Article

Speedy Keep

Hi, JMST!

Other Toy Articles

Re: "attempting to manufacture"