User talk:Midnight-Sculptor

Welcome

Hi, Midnight-Sculptor. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Midnight-Sculptor/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

FYI

A member of Howes' family has editted the article on the Easy-Bake Oven, and has been known to get, uhm, unpleasant about any questioning of Howes' contribution. —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm Ronald Howes' son, and I made the correction because somebody else, who I do not think is a family member, erroneously reworded the article so that it seems Ronald Howes was sole inventor of other mentioned products. Some he did invent, but others, like Play Doh, he did not invent, but, rather, refined. Being a chemist first and foremost, he was brought in to Kenner to rework the formula for Play Doh in order to make it safe for children. Prior to his contribution to Play Doh it contained a number of toxic substances. Not particularly good for a children's product that might get eaten, eh? Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for the heads up..... I'll be on the lookout for those wacky Howes family members..... ;) I hear they're a bunch of kooks.

I wish that I could better control the behavior of some of the members of my family, but I guess that prisons are doing some of that job. :-/ —SlamDiego_←T 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Do they allow access to editing Wikipedia from prison? :D Might be interesting to see the contribution to the knowledge base on "shanks"!

BTW, it's my Father's birthday today, 5-22-09, so, anyone who enjoyed their Kenner toys that originated in the 1960's should raise a glass in appreciation. Childhood would have been a lot less fun without him! Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello. Links to commercial sites are generally discouraged under Wikipedia external link guidelines. A simple mention of a manufacturer in the article may be appropriate, but given your apparent connection with the Celebriducks company, you are going against conflict of interest guidelines by writing about it yourself.

If you feel the company has made a "significant contribution" to the rubber duck industry, we'd need a reliable source that backed that up, and you should discuss it on the article's talk page rather than adding it yourself. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting something here, but one of the sons of Ronald Howes (as per the previous section of your talk page) appears to work for Celebriducks. Even if this is your brother, WP:COI guidelines put you too close to the company to write about it neutrally, and it's certainly inappropriate to link to a site that you or your brother are closely connected with.

You're quite right that the other commercial links on the rubber duck page are equally inappropriate - I removed them yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor any relatives of mine are employed by Celebriducks. I do know the owner of the company(darn nice guy, BTW) and I was attempting to place a neutral and factual statement that acknowledged the existence and contribution of his unique rubber duck creations.

Here's the problem. I have many connections in the Toy Industry (following in the footsteps of the family business). I have intimate and expert knowledge of many toy related subjects. That makes me a good source for accurate information. However, if, by virtue of my friendly relationships with people I may have had a business relationship with in the past (pretty much every major and many minor toy companies), I am somehow rendered too "biased" to share that information, then all that knowledge will go to waste and will just have to bang around inside my otherwise empty head! It would be a shame not to be able to share. Certainly, experts in any given field should not be banned from sharing their unique knowledge simply because they have worked in that field. That's where their specialized knowledge comes from.... would you deny the contribution of a chemical engineer to an article on fractional distillation merely because he has some tenuous connection to a company that manufactures equipment used in the process? Wikipedia would become much duller and less accurate if experts were not allowed to make contributions because they actually worked in their field of expertise at one time.

As you can see, my contribution to the article is neutral and can hardly be called promotional. My intent is to impart factual information and grant credit where credit is due to important players in the duck world who have contributed to duck culture. For example, I also mention Accoutrements' contribution of the Devil Duckie. Very important slice of the duck market! Folks go bonkers (technical term) for Devil Duckies. And I believe, and I have no doubt that thousands of collectors who count Celebriducks among their collections would also believe, that Celebriducks are an important sub category of rubber duckies. These 2 manufacturers are big players in Duckdom who have made unique contributions. Most other manufacturers have had less impact or make product that does not have the unique nature of the aforementioned.

So, there you are. I believe we are keeping within the guidelines and rules, which is certainly very important to do. It seems a bit futile to remove my unbiased addition. Someone else further removed from the situation is likely to just restore it. Yes, it's likely that would happen. It's that important in the duck world.

I'm looking for other relevant duck inormation that might make a nice addition to the article and further our understanding of the impact of rubber duckies on the world! I'm thinking about expanding the information about the materials ducks are made of (usually PVC) and the process by which they are made (rotocasting) and the impact of new legislation banning the use of phthalates in PVC used in toys and the fact that the government may be focusing on bath toys in particular for special attention in regards to the new regulations. Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You've hit the nail on the head with "someone else further removed from the situation is likely to just restore it" - if that happens, it's fine. At a very crude level, that's how the Wikipedia conflict-of-interest policy works; if we discourage people from actively promoting their own products, and instead wait for other, unconnected people to write about them, then only the genuinely notable products will get written about.

It's great to have an expert on board, and anything purely technical shouldn't be a WP:COI issue - it just gets a little shaky when an expert decides that a particular brand or company that they're connected with needs to be mentioned. Namechecking the company of a "darn nice guy" you know is getting into that territory; I know plenty of great people in my own field, but would hesitate to give them a writeup in Wikipedia (even if I felt pretty sure that they were the best example to use for something). --McGeddon (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the content I provided isn't really promotional in nature. It's just factual and I believe important to include. I assiduously avoided promotional language. I certainly could have worded it in a way to try and promote his product, but that's not what it's about! Note that I included other categories of ducks I think are important. If I find other manufacturers that have made equally important contributions I intend to include them regardless of who I know or don't know at the company. As time permits, I will be doing more research.... Look, Ma, no bias!! :D As I try to be friendly with everyone I meet in the industry, and I know a LOT of people after all these years, it's really tough to avoid. And since folks move around in this industry all the time, it's inevitable that I am on a friendly basis with people in oh so many toy companies. So, I keep to the middle of the road, mentioning companies or people who have made significant contributions without saying" their the bestest in the world, go buy their product!!" Plus, I've got you and other folks like you to keep me honest should I ever slip and stray into promotional territory, eh? :)

Please, judge me by my actions, not by the fact that I know and am personally friendly with so many people in the industry! Otherwise I won't be able to speak about anything specific which has had an impact on the industry.

Oddly, I can't find an article on Rotocasting, an important molding process in the toy (and other) industry by which the vast majority of rubber ducks are made.... That might be my next project!

Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:COI (specifically the close relationships section) before namedropping any more companies that you're connected with. You've now created an article for the Celebriducks company, apparently as a favour for a "darn nice guy" friend of yours who was warned when he tried to edit Wikipedia himself.

I appreciate that you're being careful to avoid promotional language, but the mere act of creating the article - of announcing that this particular rubber duck company is worth mentioning above all (or next to one or two) others - can be regarded as promoting that company, when coming from someone who appears to have a close connection to it. Given the breadth of your connections, I'd strongly recommend turning your attention to more neutral subjects, and leaving other users to write up the commercial side of things. --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Wikipedia does seem to have a bare-bones article on rotocasting - any insight you could add to it would be appreciated. --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for pointing me to the rotocasting article. When I searched it didn't come up.... Maybe I misspelled it or something along those lines. I'll check it out and see if I can enhance it in any way.

Actually, I created a stub article on Celebriducks in order to invite other folks to contribute information about Celebriducks. Not as a "favor" to anybody, but because I'm intrigued by the process and truly believe such an article would be of value to Wikipedia users who are curious about the subject. That's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Curiosity? I consider it noteworthy. I would consider it noteworthy had I never heard of anyone directly connected. I like toys. I like ducks. I collect such things. Silly, perhaps, for a man of my age, but true, nonetheless. And my connections are so widespread in the toy industry that I'm sure you could make a case that I should be exiled to the hinterland of toy discussion.... so what's the point? I have knowledge I'd like to share. My personal interests are what drive me to impart particular knowledge. I have no pony in this race other than the desire to share and discuss knowledge I'm interested in.

I reiterate: Judge me by my actions, not by who I know. If I ever seem to become a cheerleader attempting to advertise some particular manufacturer, by all means, delete the offending post. But that's unlikely to happen. My motivation really is pure..... about the only thing pure about me, I might add! :D

I understand the intent is to legitimize the information with no suggestion of bias, but such utterly rigid adherence to suggested guidelines without consideration of content and context will likely lead to a much less rich and less accurate experience here in Wikipedia land. So much could be lost, it would be a darn shame. A resource should be exploited (in the good way!) to it's fullest extent in order to allow the fullest enrichment of the subject. It's a good thing! Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand that creating an article about a company is effectively "promoting" it. I appreciate that you're not singing and dancing and telling people to buy Celebriducks, but creating an article about them is - when coming from someone who's friends with the owner of the company, and admits that they're adding these links on behalf of the Celebriducks owner, who can't add them himself due to COI guidelines - an inappropriate conflict of interest.

As you say yourself, "someone else further removed from the situation" will come along and mention Celebriducks at some point, if it's worth mentioning. Please stop promoting your friend's company. --McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotocasting

Actually, that article is on Centifugal casting. Totally different technique and redirecting from Rotocasting is inaccurate. Different technique, technology, and end product. That will need to be corrected. Midnight-Sculptor (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Celebriducks

A tag has been placed on Celebriducks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]