Talk:Philishave

US Naming bias

The article talks about the phasing out of the phillips namimg, but this is not the case in the rest of the world, where that branding is still used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.205.232 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You misread the article. The American name was "Norelco". The present American name is "Philips Norelco." The co-branding is to allow the phaseout of the "Norelco" name in favour of the "Philips" name. Now do you get it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Philishave is a discontinued brand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Because Philishave is a discontinued brand, articles about discontinued brands are given in the past tense. Pontiac cars are still being driven, but because Pontiac is a discontinued automotive brand, that is given on its Wikipedia article in the past tense. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No! Read MOS:TENSE. If the product still meaningfully exists, then present tense is compulsory. Philishave branded razors unquestionably still exist therefore Philishave is (still) a brand that appears on many razors that exist in the world. The manual of style is compulsory policy for editing articles. Going against it is disruptive editing and blockable. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

While it's true that the brand being discontinued does not put it into past tense, I do not see how it can still meaningfully exist fourteen years later. If they're still receiving official support, or if they're part of, for example, a notable current-run TV series, then it could be. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Philishave spares and parts are still available Google. The razors must therefore exist to require such spares and parts. MOS:TENSE makes no mention of being in receipt of official support or part of any TV series. The only criterion given is that they have to exist. That criterion is met. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE states that the brand itself has to meaningfully exist. It does not. Therefore past tense. Both Steelbeard1 and I agree on that, so either open an RFC or realize that the consensus is not with you. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting MOS:TENSE. It does not state the brand must not meaningfully exist (the word 'brand' does not appear anywhere so you clearly made that up) but the subject [of the article] must not meaningfully exist. MOS:TENSE is unambiguous on the point and even gives a closely identical example of the discontinued PDP-10 as to correct tense usage. The PDP-10 has been out of production for decades (far longer than philishave) but the MOS unambiguously requires present tense.

To edit against the manual of style is disruptive editing and requires you to obtain a consensus on the talk page to do so (unlikely). I do not require talk page consensus to follow the manual of style.

Oh and Steelbeard1 has neither contributed to any discussion nor edited on the point since my response to him above so it would appear, on the surface, that he has accepted the point. I did say to Steelbeard1 that I happen to agree [with both of you] that it should be past tense. But Wikipedia is not edited to what I (or you) believe it should be, but by consensus. The Manual of Style is that consensus. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Pilishave is a brand name. It is the subject of the article. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

PDP-10 is a brand name It is the subject of the article PDP-10. MOS:TENSE unambiguously requires the present tense. The example unambiguously says so. Similarly 'Pontiac' and 'Philishave' are the subjects of their respective articles. MOS:TENSE unambiguously demands the present tense. The manual of style exists to ensure consistency throughout the project - essential when there are god knows how many thousand editors all with their own ideas on how things should be done. Editing against the consensus established at WP:MOS is disruptive editing. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not at all what MOS:TENSE says, I have explained that you to many times now. It comes down to the simple idea: does the brand Philishave meaningfully exist. The answer is not at all. So we follow what MOS:TENSE says and use past tense. The PDP-10 continues to feature in popular culture which is how they continue to meaningfully exist. The Philishave brand does not. See Ford Model A (1927–31) for another example of past-tense usage. Where the products still exist, but the brand does not. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The brand Philishave exists as much as not as PDP-10 exists. MOS:TENSE unambiguously states that present tense is to be used. How you can claim that the brand does not exist when Philishave branded spares and parts are freely available (if you take the trouble to Google for them - link supplied above which you obviously did not follow) is beyond comprehension. Can you please quote the part of MOS:TENSE where it says that a brand must not exist in popular culture, because I seem unable to find it. Basically: you are wrong and just can't admit it. I, on the other hand, am not wrong and I have MOS:TENSE on my side.

The Ford model T article is incorrect usage (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Just because you can find an article where MOS has been misapplied, that does not justify ignoring the rules. I could trawl up many articles equally dubious that correctly use the present tense. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Saab Automobile, Mercury (automobile), Compaq Presario (and parent Compaq), and Windows Phone all use past tense, just to name a small selection. This means the burden is to show that the brand still meaningfully exists, and that the PDP-10 is an exception. I proposed a simple test, if you could show that it was still being officially supported that would easily show it meaningfully exists. As for popular culture, that would potentially give the brand a meaningful existence. Simple existence (the products existing) is not the bar that needs cleared to get it into present tense. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already shown that the brand is still supported. I have no intention of repeating the point yet again. The fact that you cannot accept it is just bloody mindedness. The rest of your post is pure bullshit as I have already referred you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

There is no point discussing anything with someone who resolutely will not take any notice of the points raised by others; lies about about what policies actually say and lies about being supported by others when they are not. And you are, once again, deliberately misrepresenting facts to support your position, as the majority of the articles that you list are not about brand names at all but companies that no longer exist (and thus unquestionably use the past tense correctly) and so are not remotely applicable as examples.

Put simply: you are a proven liar and not worth arguing with. 86.188.36.227 (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:TENSE and MOS:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding Philishave article

Without a sign that an admin took part in the MOS dispute regarding the discontinued Philishave brand, I posted in [1] asking for input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE is what rules this. And it very specifically states "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued." Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

except for past events, subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. My argument is, and has been, that the brand Philishave no longer meaningfully exists. I've linked to a half-dozen examples of brands using past tense since they no longer meaningfully exist. They all have products from the brand still existing, but that doesn't appear to have given the brand meaning. I've proposed reasonable tests for showing it meaningfully existing, but there has been no effort to propose other tests other than what amounts to "not everything they produced has been confined to an incinerator". The exception exists for a reason, and this is one such reason. Even my one test, that it exists in current popular media, would actually fail, since Burma-Shave has had a resurgence many times and is shown in past tense. I cannot find any evidence that Philishave meaningfully exists. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again you are A LIAR. You are still deliberately misrepresenting all but one of your seven examples and refusing to accept what the manual of style requires (which is intended to ensure consistency throughout Wikipedia totally regardless of whether you (or I or anyone else) agree with it or not).

Your claimed supporting examples:

Pontiac Brand name. However, it requires the present tense per MOS:TENSE. The fact that the article incorrectly uses the past tense does not justify its use elsewhere (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has not changed since this discussion started).

Ford Model A (1927–31) A specific model of car using a still extant brand name (Ford). In this case the tense used is (correctly) the present because this model still is "the Ford Motor Company's second market success". Unless you have a way of going back in time and changing this, it cannot ever cease to be such.

Saab Automobile Misrepresented example. Article not about a brand name but a company that no longer exists in its own right, hence past tense correctly used.

Mercury (automobile) Misrepresented example. Article not about a brand name but a division of a company that no longer exists, hence past tense correctly used.

Compaq Presario Misrepresented example. Article is about a brand name but the article correctly uses the present tense so does not support your case

Compaq Misrepresented example. Article not about a brand name but a company that no longer exists in its own right, hence past tense correctly used.

Windows phone Misrepresented example. Article is about a brand name but the article correctly uses the present tense so does not support your argument.

You are arguing in the wrong place. As two people have now pointed out, MOS:TENSE covers the point. As the box at the top of WP:MOS says, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" and has been arrived at by consensus (i.e. there is a much larger consensus against you than just Canterbury Tail and myself). If you wish to make any proposals to change the manual of style against the established consensus, this is not the place to do it. The correct place is on the talk pages of the manual of style probably via the vehicle of an RfC. It is highly unlikely to get much traction as a very large number of articles would have to be altered to match any revision to the required tense. 86.142.79.147 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Saab, Mercury, and Compaq are all marques owned by other companies. All seven articles linked use past tense, with the words was and were featured repeatedly throughout. Windows phone as mentions how it featured rather than features. You managed to bring up a single WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the PDP-10 to support your interpretation. Both you and Canterbury Tail have yet to address the exception. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No! The Saab, Mercury, and Compaq articles are specifically about the companies or division of a company not a marque. It says so right in the lede of the article. Compaq Presario and Windows phone both use present tense right in the first sentence.

You are once again attempting to deliberately misrepresent your examples. My allegation stands and is proven. 86.188.36.189 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As the brand has an unusual image in most markets, Saab owners tend to be correspondingly offbeat, Mercury was marketed as an entry-level premium brand, The Compaq brand. The final two right from the lead. Stop trying to cherry pick the little tiny bits you can find that supposedly support your argument. You still have not addressed my core bit about meaningfully existing, so at this point I have no choice but to presume you cannot overcome that. The most you can do is repeatedly make personal attacks, a violation of an actual policy, in your attempt to defend your misinterpretation of a guideline. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

All three articles specifically state in the first sentence that the article is about (respectively) a defunct "manufacturer"; a "defunct division" of a company and a defunct "company". None of them state that they are about a brand or a marque (another word for brand clearly intended to confuse). And Mercury (automobile) doesn't support your case anyway because it uses the present tense.

I am not the one challenging the established consensus at MOS:TENSE. You are. The WP:BURDEN is on you to change the established consensus.

You are the one who has repeatedly claimed imaginary support; what MOS:TENSE actually says and supposedly similar articles. Your word cannot be trusted for anything. That is the dictionary definition of a liar. 86.130.28.51 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You are purposefully ignoring what I stated. This conversation cannot continue unless you do so. At this point I have no choice but to revert per WP:STATUSQUO. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I personally feel that: whether a particular brand is or was a brand is a fairly lame point to be either arguing or edit warring over. However, having said that: the manual of style is specific on the issue (that it should be 'is') and that is what every one should be following.

I feel it should be pointed out, that 86...'s very first reply to you demonstrated, via a Google link, that items are still being sold this very day under the Philishave brand name (and apparently by Philips). 86.. also reminded you of that at least twice since then. Admittedly, it is not the electric razors themselves, but certainly the parts and accessories that are being so marketed. This, to me, makes the Philishave brand not only in meaningful existence but also a brand in current usage for marketing products. Since this was proven right at the very start of your interchange, I fail to follow how you can persistently claim that the brand does not 'meaningfully exist' and that the article should use 'was'.

I have also done some minor editing to emphasise that although the electric razors are no longer sold, the shaver heads and other accessories still are. -RFenergy (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Philishave is not being used to market any product by Philips the brand owner as shown here. Ford Model A (1927-31) uses past tense. This seller has parts for it. Third party products exist. No support exists for it by Philips. The MOS clearly states that if it no longer meaningfully exists it gets past tense. I am simply asking for something that makes Philishave stand out from the rest of the past tense articles, such as those I linked above. I also see no given test to show that something does actually meaningfully exist so I have tried to come up with some. I don't see how it can meaningfully exist when it only exists on unofficial products, and leftovers. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be under a misapprehension. Your link links to Philips's current range of electric razors and not to any parts or accessories for historical products so it is hardly any great surprise that 'Philishave' is not mentioned. The original Google link that 86.. provided in his first response to you in the previous section links to spares (mostly replacement heads) and accessories (mostly plug in chargers or other power supplies) for older shavers sold under the Philishave name. Those spares and accessories include pattern parts (but are most likely repackaged genuine Philips part) as well as those identified as Philips parts under the Philishave name. They are most likely inventory that was manufactured at the time when Philips were using the Philishave name.

It is not uncommon for manufacturers to manufacture all the spares and accessories likely to be required during a product's lifetime while the production lines are active. In many European countries, manufacturers are required by law to make spare parts and consumables available for a specified period of time after the last product was sold though parts generally tend to continue to be available until inventory is exhausted. It is also not unknown for the manufacturer to sell inventory on to specialist suppliers of parts and accessories for historical products. Philips may well have done this, but the fact remains that the inventory bears the Philips and Philishave branding.

As far as the Ford Model A (1927-31) article is concerned, it is not relevant to this discussion. The topic sentence for the article does not state that the subject of the article is a brand name. It states that the subject of the article "was the Ford Motor Company's second market success". As 86.. has pointed out several times above, the Ford Model A still is Ford's second market success. so I have to agree that 'was' is incorrect in that particular context. I can now start to see why 86..'s complaints that you misrepresent examples and policies has merit. You have done it three times in your previous post. -RFenergy (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I linked to the parts page. Nothing listed. It is not being manufactured nor sold by Phillips. As for the Model A article, it's relevant because you keep wanting to bring up that Google link to third party sellers. I found a third party seller for the Model A. Therefore, either the Model A page is incorrect in using past tense, or that fails to be a standard by which something can meaningfully exist. My issue is none of you want to state what your standard is for something to meaningfully exist, which is not the same as existing. I've shown what mine is, and that it fails that. I can't even begin to address whatever you have set, and just like the IP editor you simply keep trying to say I'm wrong without giving me an honest chance to defend myself. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this. As I said, I don't have a dog in this fight.

It is patently clear from your response, not to mention all of the above, that you are determined to have your way and are not prepared to listen to anyone else. I am suspicious that there well may be a WP:CIR issue here, but there certainly is a WP:IDHT issue.

It was exactly the same at 5.56×45mm NATO where you would not WP:AGF and accept that someone else may have been right and that there really was a problem. Even after the screen grab, you still would not accept it at first. I am also suspicious that the IP address editor who reverted back to the bulleted list was you editing logged out (mainly because there was no reason for a drive by IP editor who had never edited the article before to do so). However, I can't prove it. -RFenergy (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

While I cannot find an image of the back of a set of Philips SH50 replacement heads which are designed to fit older Philishave branded shavers, there is no mention of the Philishave name on the front of the box as shown on this Amazon link. [2] Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that your link is to an American product on an American site. AFAIK Philips did not use the Philishave brand in America so that does not really prove anything. The British spares sites mostly use the Philishave brand.

Of greater interest though, is that the Amazon page for spares is headed 'Philishave spares'. The link specifically says "Philishave Spares at Amazon.co.uk - Low Prices on Philishave…" if that is offered. For some unexplained reason, "Amazon.co.uk" is blacklisted so I cannot include a direct link. Even the product itself when followed from that page is headed 'Philishave spares'. If nothing else, that demonstrates that the brand name is still in use and recognised. If you can't find it (or can't access it for any reason) let me know and I will upload a screen grab. It will have to be tomorrow as I don't have time to do it now. -RFenergy (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

From Amazon Canada where Philishave branded shavers were sold, the SH50 package. Still no mention of Philishave at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Steelbeard1: Did you try entering 'Philishave' as a search key in your Canadian site?. Had you done so you would come up with this (works for 'Philishave spares' as well). It works perfectly on the US Amazon site as well. I cannot upload the screen grab for UK Amazon, because it is Amazon copyright. However, I have determined that the French, German and Dutch Amazon sites are all headed 'Philishave spares' (Well, the word 'Philishave' is there, the rest is in French, German and Dutch respectively). It also works for just the word 'Philishave' in every case taking you to (mostly) Philips's current range (not branded 'Philishave' but 'Philips'). I have not checked elsewhere in Europe, but only because it is a pain rigging the IP address so that I am not continually redirected back to UK Amazon.

I also had a look in my local purveyor of electric shaving appliances this morning, particularly the spares counter. Philips's cutting heads are mostly sold in boxes, the front of which are not dissimilar to the one that you linked to above showing the model series to which the heads are applicable. However, as you suspected, the back of the box is more revealing. They list all the specific razor models that that particular set of heads fit. Some boxes have a list of 'Philips model <whatever>', presumably newer razors. Other boxes have 'Philishave model <whatever>', presumably older razors.

I also searched a few other UK suppliers of Philips's parts, and found a bit over half of suppliers would return results when a search for 'Philishave' was made (and there are not that many suppliers these days). Two examples: this one (note 'Philishave spares' in the the URL). And also the UK's largest supplier of spares and parts for virtually anything, Partmaster (again notice 'Philishave' in the URL).

This is overwhelming evidence that Philishave as a brand name is alive, well and kicking. -RFenergy (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The point I am making is Philips itself is not plugging the Philishave brand on its spares. I do not count Google searches or third party shaver parts suppliers. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are. On the back of the Philips genuine spares sold in shops here at least in the UK (my second para above). And whether you count third party suppliers is merely your opinion. I do regard it as evidence that the brand exists. -RFenergy (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Still seeking a photo of the back of the current box of a genuine Philips set of replacement heads such as SH50 which would work on older Philishave branded shavers to prove your point that Philips still uses the Philishave name on the back of the box. It must be of the current box design as shown in above links. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are unlikely to get one uploaded on Wikipedia as the box artwork is copyrighted and uploading an image of it is prohibited by Wikipedia's Ts&Cs (otherwise I would have done so). Your only hope is for someone to find an online image showing the back of the box. I have not found one so far. The front of the box is no problem but it doesn't help as it only has the razor series. As it stands, for now you will have to take my word for it.

However: I have since discovered that 'Philishave' is a legitimate search term on Philips's own website and it turns up 'Philishave' branded products. The word 'Philishave' is specifically used 11 times on that page in connection with specific products including a current manufacture 'heritage edition' shaver (second line of description). Thus: it is very definitely a current brand as of 2020. -RFenergy (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I did believe that Philips themselves were no longer using the Philishave brand, but it never occurred to me to actually check the Philips website. With Philips clearly using the Philishave brand for both older models and at least one currently sold model, it is proven beyond any doubt that 'Philishave' is not only a 'meaningful brand', but a current brand. The Philishave branded model is currently available for purchase (For example here and here as well as the Philips page linked above).

Most definitely a current brand and the article must state that Philishave is a brand but also is a current brand. 81.157.153.155 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the brand was revived on a 'heritage edition' Philishave branded shaver to note Philips' 80th anniversary in the electric shaver business, the article was updated with citation to note this special model shaver. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Good edit. However, I have reverted the article back to singe brand of Philishave because your second reference is for a Norelco branded product and does not mention Philishave. The article states that Norelco is still a current brand, though due for phase out. AFAICT: we only have evidence that one Philishave branded model is available to buy as of this posting. If a second model comes to light then there is, of course, no objection to reverting back to the plural.

Also: where did you get the idea that this heritage model was introduced in 2019?. None of the pages referenced in the article or on this talk page state this. I assume that you have deduced this by adding the anniversary (80th) to the year of introduction (1939). However, per policy, that is not allowed because that is making a claim that is not specifically supported in the source used (See WP:SYNTHESIS). I would agree that it is a highly likely conclusion, but it is unsupported. I have CEed the point but I hope that I have retained the essence of what you were saying. -RFenergy (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

STOP PRESS: I have now found that the model that you referenced in the article is not the model that I referenced above. There are thus two models of razor sold under the Philishave brand that we know of. However: the illustrations look identical and so do the features. I suspect that the razors are the same except that one may be specifically marketed for the European market (230 volt CE approved etc.) whereas the other may be marketed for the US market (120 volt UL approved etc.). If that is the case, then the two models are indeed distinct and that there are at least two models branded 'Philishave'.

I have just amended the article to state that there are multiple Philishave 'models' (plural) rather than get into the minutiae of exactly how many models that there are (after all: if I edit in two models, some smart arse will find a third, sold in some far flung corner of the planet!). -RFenergy (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you bothered to look at one of the linked citations, it shows a graphic saluting the brand's 80th anniversary showing early mascot Mr. Steel Beard at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And you point is … what exactly? Please read my post again. I never claimed it as anything other that the 80th anniversary. -RFenergy (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this citation at [5] from Philips USA does not even mention the Norelco brand except for the SH30 replacement heads which this model uses. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you have another look at the reference that you used for your edit to the article. I you were to do so you would discover that your citation specifically stated that the shaver was a "Philips Norelco S3552/89 (Heritage edition)" (My emphasis). The actual shaver illustration in that reference might have 'Philishave' on it but it is too blurred to make out. But I have found subsequent references for a different model (at least a different number if not shaver) that is US sourced and branded as Philishave, so what's the problem? -RFenergy (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I did and even used the search feature and I am stating this again. Outside of its mention regarding replacement heads, there is no mention of the Norelco brand on the web page or even the URL. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your second reference that I referred to above (now highlighted in red) was this one that you added with this edit. No mention of Philishave anywhere, two mentions of 'Norelco', one of which is identified as a 'heritage edition'. I did not question your first reference which is the one to which you linked, and apparently searched. -RFenergy (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I DO NOT count third party sources. I am ONLY referring to sources FROM and BY Philips. 73.18.200.241 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bully for you Steelbeard1.

First: Editing logged out is sock puppetry which is blockable.

Second: You were the one who used a third party source in your edit. That is: the edit that I linked to in my previous post so your rant is out of place. The article currently uses two Philips originated sources, so, once again, where is the problem?

Third: Not counting third part sources is actually against Wikipedia policy. Third party sources are preferred to manufacturer's sources. However, for the claim in the sentence in question, Philips's web pages are not contentious. -RFenergy (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not sock puppeting. I was using a borrowed computer to make my statement. The third party review web site I cited was only secondary because, AS YOU STATED, Wikipedia prefers third party citations. The point I am making is Philips itself DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the Norelco name on their web pages for the 80th anniversary Philishave branded models. Are you implying that sock puppeting is not allowed ON TALK PAGES? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter which computer you are using or borrowing, editing logged out is socking. Socking is not allowed on talk pages just as much as it is not allowed when editing articles.

You still have not explained what the problem is? You are the only person who has claimed that there is a Philips Norelco heritage edition shaver when you uploaded the reference stating that there was. The article currently makes no such claim on which, we are apparently agreeing, is the correct position. So I repeat: where exactly is the problem? -RFenergy (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So you prefer someone else to be credited for commenting on borrowed computers? How many times do I have to explain that Philips USA (more formally Philips North America LLC) does NOT mention the Norelco name (outside of the SH30 replacement heads this shaver uses) regarding the Heritage Edition Philishave shaver Philips USA markets. Third party web pages not connected in any way with Philips ONCE AGAIN I do not count. I can add that the manual for this shaver mentions the Norelco name regarding replacement heads as well as the trademark notice. I am referring to the article and NOT this talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are making the edit not the owner of the computer, therefore you must do so under your own identity. I edit from three different computers in different places, but always under my own user name. You managed it the first time that signed with your ‘borrowed computer’ IP address and then substituted your own account name.

You don’t have to explain. I have never disagreed with you over Norelco.

As explained: third party sources are preferred to primary sources and as it refers to a different model, there is no evidence that it is wrong.

Unless you can explain how this discussion is intended to improve the article, this discussion has reached its conclusion. -RFenergy (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Only if you agree that you do not want my girlfriend to be credited for talk edits I made on her computer when I cannot remember the password. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

By not logging in, your girlfriend is being credited with the edit, because the edit is credited to her IP address. But by not logging in, you are avoiding WP:SCRUTINY which is not permitted. Though in this case it was transparently obvious so you didn't appear to be doing anything underhand. If you log in from where ever you are the edit is credited to you and the source computer's IP address is not revealed. Also by not logging in, you reveal a lot of information such as where you are. -RFenergy (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Shaver photo

Because the 'borrowed' 80th Anniversary Philishave shaver model was deleted, I replaced it with an original photo I took myself of my own Philishave model S3552 shaver. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Good addition. At least the Philishave branding is visible unlike the original. -RFenergy (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)