Talk:Shocker Toys/Archive 4

Toy Fair 2011
There have been a huge amount of updates from New York Toy Fair on alot of reputable sites concerning Shocker Toys and all the topics mentioned here on Wiki. So I think alot of updates are in order for Series2 Indie Spotlight Tick release (In Stock), the showing of the Anime Spotlight Series 1 lineup, the showing of the rest of their comic lineup and their Mallows. I know Shockerhelp would like to keep the page looking dark and dismal but I think that if there are updates then they should be added. Also someone should go through and check the info it seems all other sites except the one cited say Shocker Toys went into effect in 2000 and there are a few other mistakes and diss-information added by Shockerhelp and others here. Let's try and do what Wiki set out to do and post the facts not blur them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What actual figures did they have at Toy Fair? From the pictures I saw it looked like the same old prototypes stuck into old packaging from Series 1. There was also not even prototypes for the Anime line, just other people's artwork displayed. They also have not confirmed that they can produce the anime figures yet. Japanese companies are notoriously fickle about their licenses and that has been what has been the problem in many other cases, what has Shocker Toys done to secure these licenses other than pay a fee? Where are the actual figures? I don't see anything worthy of note from them at Toy Fair except more promises and pre-orders. The only figures that were released (The Tick) were released because they had underwriters, namely Nomad. Nothing from series two is shown to be any closer to release than it was nine months ago at San Diego Comic Con. If you have more information, then please share it. --69.243.132.29 (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've updated it to mention the Anime Spotlight illustrations, the release of the two Tick figures (although the transparent blue Tick seems to have disappeared - I'm not sure what the status is of that) and the 2010 convention exclusives. I wouldn't tie too much to the Anime Spotlight designs, as they are "pending approval", so there is still a way to go before they are released. I also can't see cause yet to mention the release of other Series 2 figures, as they haven't been shipped, although that should be updated as soon as they come out. Good to see a Tick figure, though. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, I am glad someone wants to take the time to properly address what is going on with the Company unlike Mr. 69.243.132.29. I know someone who already received their Tick and you can see from the forums people have started to receive them which is great. I think everyone hits some bumps and to skew the wiki article to make it seem as the company is a bunch of deadbeats is not proper wiki edict. But Bilby I am sure ShockerHelp or some unknown IP like above will delete your changes or skew it back to make the company look bad. I really think some sort of lock should be applied to this article so it can't be skewed or vandalized. Again though thanks for making the proper adjustments Bilby as fan of their goods it makes me happy to see them moving forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So were the insults needed? Can we keep this civil? I mean, lets start with the fact that your IP address shows a high likelihood that you are somebody close to Shocker Toys. Then we can move to the fact that you didn't sign or date your post AGAIN. And then we can clearly see that I, nor anyone except Bilby did anything to the article. Pariah74 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor 69.243.132.29 clearly seems to be out of line. No one is insulting but just stating the plain facts that the article has been a bit skewed. Also just because someone has a NJ IP does not mean they work for Shocker Toys or they would be cutting alot of checks. I will also remind you that there is a huge collecting community in New Jersey. So conflict of interest does not come into play when ShockerHelp uses the name ShockerHelp but says he has no connection to the company. I just simply came here and suggested that the Toy Fair facts should be folded into the companies article so there is no need to jump on my back. If anyone is jumping down throats here it appears to be you Eric and I think you should take a step back and remain civil. I am not here for trouble but just to see toys I love get the respect they deserve. So again Bilby thank you for adding some Toy Fair facts and I hope some people here learn to not take such offense to altering an article to show that products are in fact on the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it looks like Bilby handled it in a fair way. The article doesn't say anything about new product from Shocker, since there was none and I'm happy with that. --Pariah74 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited to reflect my apathy with the above poster's response.--Pariah74 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pariah, you seem to have it all wrong. Again you show your COI as they did have new product at the show and released product. You wishing they didn't will not make it true. The coverage and facts make it true and that is what Bilby added to the article. Choosing to leave facts out to skew the article clearly is COI. Facts good and bad should both be presented here which they are. Posting legal matters that don't have proof or back up is just plain attacking the article and showing your clear acts of COI. Off the record I would love to hear how Shocker wronged you so bad as to turn you towards trying to destroy their company.
 * You don't understand what conflict of interest is. Having an opposing opinion to you is not a conflict of interest. Yes, you had the Tick there, but the only one you had for sale was the Mucus Tick, that had an underwriter. You have not released your product that you promised, you have not given refunds to all customers and you are in violation of FTC guidelines. Removing my requests for edits doesn't make that true. I simply posted it where you cannot delete it. This article is protected from random edits. So if my FTC violations information is deemed worthy, it will get in. And you claiming that printing off some anime images is releasing product doesn't make it true either. As I said, I am happy with the edits. If you are too, then it's strange that you're still here fighting with me! lol Also, SIGN YOUR POSTS, PLEASE! Pariah74 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is this guy yelling at? And why does he keep calling me someone I am not? Clearly Pariah seems to have suffered a mental breakdown and no one is fighting with him. I have agreed with edits as I am the one that asked for the Toy Fair info to be included. Now as a first time wiki contributor I must be forced to take insults, yelling and accusations? I think something should be done about this person editing at least on this article as he/she clearly has a COI. They have proved COI by getting upset here and not remaining civil. He/she also seems to clearly want to mark the company as some scam even though they have already stated to customers through notification that the products were delayed and offered refunds. I know as I am a customer who ordered one of the delayed products. Also they sent me a shipping notice from USPS with tracking for The Tick action figure for which I placed an order. How is that violating any rules? Again it seems this person has some sort of beef with Shocker Toys and under the wiki rules that should not be allowed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More insults? From the wikipedia page:
 * A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
 * I have no connection to the company. I would like the company to be fairly represented. I believe that fair representation will not look good for the Shocker Toys. That is not a conflict of interests. A conflict of interests, would be like when the owner of the company pretends to be a customer and creates and edits a wikipedia article about his own company. Then posts in the talk section fighting every edit made to the article in an attempt to prevent any negative information from getting in. My attempt to bring the FTC violations in is simply to show that despite offering a few refunds, the letter of the law states that after a certain length of time the seller must just refund all money. It is illegal to a seller to expect buyers to be investors in their business without telling them so. An investor recognizes that he may lose money, or never see returns. A buyer has the right to get merchandise after 30 days. It's interesting that you bring this up, which allows me to talk about it again, even after you deleted it. I have no conflict of interest. I do not like Shocker Toys, but not liking a company, and being "closely connected" to them are two completely different things. Hopefully that clears things up for you. I also have to wonder if you are now deliberately not signing your posts. You have been advised to do so several times. What is your reason?Pariah74 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back. I am not satisfied with edits Bilby made.I see that it says that The Tick and Mucus Tick were released. I have only seen evidence that the Mucus Tick shipped. I don't see any confirmation from anyone that confirms anyone has received the regular Tick. It's certainly feasible that they have, considering it used the same mold, but I am not aware of anyone stating they have received it. On their website they say "in stock" in the news section but it's unclear if that refers to both or only the Mucus Tick, and the regular Tick still says it's a pre-order in their store. Nothing outside of the unsigned poster above, and their press release seems to indicate the regular Tick is available, including their own storefront. I think it's premature to list it on wikipedia as released. From their store page under The Tick "*Pre-order terms and conditions apply*" I believe a more accurate description would be to say, "*In February, 2011, the Summer 2010 Idle Hands Exclusive, Mucus Tick, was released, however The Tick action figure from Indie Spotlight Series 2 remains a pre-order on their website.*" Pariah74 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I did this correctly either. Sorry. This talk page is very controversial and all of the rules make it hard for a newb like myself to contribute. Also, unsigned poster, please do not delete this. It's important to keep the article accurate. If it disappears I will simply copy it to my talkpage. Thanks for your cooperation.Pariah74 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It clearly states on their forums from customer(s) as well as on the Fwoosh forums that customers have received their Tick figures. As I read the item description on their store it appears their first release wave has sold out which is far from a con on anyone. You also have stated above you do not like the company in your above post and that to me screams admission to COI. I have neither love or hate for the company. I just enjoy their offerings of action figures. Again this user appears to be acting way out of line and with his admitting to COI should be flagged from editing this page. The talk section is great and allows editors to speak about what facts should be added and what facts if not backed should not. It isn't an avenue to take out a personal vendetta against the company or use it to discourage stores and customers from ordering products by linking it to various bias websites. If the above user wants to have a discussion on how to better the article and not how to damage the company then that is different. I think this article needs a closer look into and maybe a re-write down to the basic core of the company and what is actually facts and notable information. I will admit though that even with the slight skews this wiki article seems to tell more info then their own webpage. Bibly I agree with the small edits and additions you made. While it does not seem to skew the article in any direction it states facts that were given by notable sources at the show. As a long time wiki lurker and toy collector I like to see information about great toylines and how they came to be instead of who did what wrong and who is violating some misunderstood rules. The more we travel into the new pop culture era the more we will see toys, comics and movies blending and to see wiki editors applying a database and time-lines to articles concerning them makes for great reading. One day when I feel I can properly alter an article I may add some knowledge until then I will leave it up to the great editors who have been doing this for years. (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk)
 * I don't see where I claimed they were conning anyone or doing ANY of the things you claim. I also do not see anyone showing that the received a blue Tick, except Nomadixxx who was the underwriter. I said that the article should be changed to reflect that The Tick is not for sale on their website and linked to their store for proof. I am sorry if you find the Shocker website to be biased, but it's called a primary source in the academic world. According to Shocker's website The Tick is still in pre-order status. Can you offer a link that provides evidence to the contrary, or do you just want to continue to make the editing process, long and difficult? Thank you for your concern. Now once again, can you please provide proof that The Tick is available for sale on their website? (edited to be clearer for our anonymous friend)Pariah74 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems you are mistaken about only Nomadixxx being the only one to get his Ticks. It seems another collector on the forum has received his figures as well http://thefwoosh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=64913&start=825 from Shocker Toys. So this is where I see an attempt to skew the article by saying they were not in stock and not coming. Again their store shows them as sold out for the first cycle and allows a reserve not pre-order to reserve the item until the next cycle of figures is back in stock. Also Amok Time shows them in stock on their store http://www.amoktime.com/st45676.html. So again I can only see nothing but distain for Shocker Toys which was admitted to by the user above. I have provided the facts for the editors to make the proper adjustments to the article. Pariah74 please do not take this the wrong way but I think you should back off from this article until you can add something that contributes to the article and makes it a more refined article. talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's review your sources. The people on Fwoosh were underwriters for the project, so yes, they have received their preview copies. Amok Time, is showing it as The Tick "*Preview figure*" and clearly states that it is going to be different from the regular run in the series. Shocker's website CLEARLY states under the Tick that PREORDER RULES APPLY. If I see no other objections I will make the edits myself.
 * So I stand by my request that this article be edited to reflect that the Tick that was released was not the first from Indie Spotlight Series 2. It was a preview figure. A very small shipment was received, and handed out to a few select customers and underwriters. Until you learn to sign your posts you need to keep your comments about what I should do to yourself. Your misunderstanding of conflict of interest (and your suspected hypocrisy) are not needed, nor wanted. If you have a problem with me writing on this talk page take it up with an administrator. Or you can look at my talk page where it is stated by an admin that I do not have a conflict of interest. Pariah74 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again clearly you are not paying much attention to the facts. The facts state that the regular Tick is the same as the Limited Tick in only that it has a rusty stop sign packed in with it. They did not say they shipped a few pieces or anything to support that fact. They did however say they added a rusty stop sign to the first 1,000pcs to thank the fans for sticking with the company through their delays "Wow what a bunch of evil company owners". So the Tick and Series2 were still produced from what I can see from the Toy Fair coverage but they did start shipping The Tick early to customers and from what can be seen online many of them now own them. The Mucus Tick which "WAS" Limited to 1,000pcs also shipped to customers and many now have them and have shown them online. So if you make an alteration to this article to somehow state that products were not produced and people did not receive them, then you are clearly acting bias and showing your true nature to editing this article. Just as above when you said the products did not exists and they were not in stock you were proven wrong by the facts as Amok Time clearly states "In Stock" and you can see from the Fwoosh forum that many have now shown the Tick figures in their possession. Also there are no administrators here as wiki editors govern themselves and that is what makes contributing to an article so great. Everyone who has the proper facts and info to back it up can add or better the articles they choose to contribute to. Again though you seem to be taking everything said here, the facts and advice to heart and lashing back at anyone who has a different view of the company or their products. I do not have a username and I do not need one to contribute to wiki so my IP address serves as my signature. You will learn not everyone thinks like you and in this great site called wiki people have the right to make sure an article properly represents what it is based on. Your hatred for the company which can be seen by searching your name on google should have no bearing on this article unless you wanted to provide facts. Have the products been delayed? Yes and the facts concerning the delays have been added to the article already. Have products been canceled? Yes, and again the facts concerning cancelations have been added to the article. I don't see you hovering on any other toy companies’ wiki page going off in a mad rage on their talk pages. I have tried to be civil with you and even offered facts so that other editors can properly adjust the article. Instead of a thank you and trying to work with me to better the page you yell and insult me by saying I am someone else. I haven't said you are somebody working for another company trying to destroy Shocker Toys or you are seeking attention by changing this page to post about it on other forums and get many pats on the back by detractors of the company. I wouldn't say those things because I do not have evidence of that. I have only seen the way you behave on this talk page and the fact that you will not take any outside advice or facts when planning to alter this article. All I ask is that you weigh the facts and information before altering the article and discussing it here in a civil manner. Am I asking too much for us to remain civil? The changes Bilby made are all based on what he could verify from Toy Fair 2011 if there was more info that was backed I am sure he would have added it but he did not. When new information comes out again and can be verified and backed up then it can be added to the article. I will say though the things you mention on other forums like their CEO is fat and other verbal abuse comments which I won't mention here are not info that would make this article better. --WikiLurker 173.54.237.167 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to write that the ones for sale through Amok Time are considered "Preview" figures because that is how they are labeled. I am also going to write that Shocker Toys own page still lists the Tick (as well as series 2) in pre-order status. Also, where is your source for the 1000 with rusty stop sign for a thank you? You seem to have a lot of inside information. You could be a big help, now that you have learned to sign your posts. What I say in other forums is not really relevant here. If you have a problem with what I say elsewhere then it take it up with the other forum administrators. It's interesting that you call for civility when you have been the only person flinging insults (I am having a mental breakdown?) Also interesting that you first say you haven't seen me write anything anywhere else, then you say that you see me fling insults at the CEO. Huh? Anyway, it's a deadend street. I have no problem that I do not like Shocker Toys and that my part here is to keep the information completely accurate and hold their feet to the fire. I see this small release being built up to be more than it really was. In my OPINION which I am not including in the article, Shocker Toys are not a legitimate business and they operate in a manner similar to a ponzi scheme. I believe that a neutral article will show these facts. If you disagree that is fine, but our goal is the same, just the facts. And the facts say that the blue Tick released was a small preview run and not the actual first figure for the line. There are many people still waiting for both Ticks.
 * (Edit)On the Shocker Toys forums the "administrator" has said that the Tick figure available now is a limited run and is a preview figure. That would indicate to me that it is NOT the first release in the Indie Spotlight 2, and I am changing the article to reflect that. To quote the Forum Admin *"The 1st edition Tick does not have a UPC code on it as it was limited..."* I would that settles it. If it were part of the wide release and intended for retail sales it would have a UPC code. I cannot see any justification for calling this the first in the actual release.Pariah74 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." --WikiLurker 173.54.237.167 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using the talk page correctly. You are not in a position to tell me how to do anything. Until you learn how to use a talk page without admonishment, please keep your comments to yourself. If you want to pretend to be a moderator you could at least post this on my talkpage. Pariah74 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think my changes were worthy of an editing war. Also, please document it when you edit an article. The changes I made were small, but more accurate and reflect the stance taken by the company. Could you please reply here and discuss why you have reverted the article? In all fairness I think this item is better put under the *Limited Run* header, but I am happy with where it is as long as it accurately reflects the release. A release that does not have UPC codes on the package, and contains misspellings of Shocker Toy's home town...things not usually found on a wide release.Pariah74 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a screen cap of Shocker Toy's official view on the subject. http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/dd405/picdumpstomp/GeoffsBS.jpg As you can see I am almost directly quoting their Forum Administrator. If you disagree with my edits, please discuss it here before editing, as I have done for you. Pariah74 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear Geoff doesn't want that information to be known. He wrote that post on the forums and deleted it as soon as I edited the article. It's obviously the truth. It doesn't violate any copyright law, or terms of service. So I'll keep reposting it. Here it is again in case anyone who wants to discuss this article would like to see it. http://img.hostmyjpg.com/9502742194_picture1-44.png It clearly states that the item does not have a UPC code and that it was a limited run. That would seem to indicate that it is not the first in the actual release, but rather a preview release.Pariah74 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First reference is incorrectly labeled as being from Washington Post. It is actually an article from the Washington Times.
I don't know how to correct this, but thought I would mention it if somebody else would like to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.198.50 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ There were also two entries in the references list to the same Times article; they've been combined into a single reference. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance comment
I put nowiki tags on a edit request here because it suddenly appeared in the edit request backlog, despite having been answered five years ago. Altamel (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Update needed?
An editor has raised concerns about the currentness of the ownership and management info, given this. Does anyone have a WP:RS for this information? I've tagged the article in response. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you saying man, that they didint make a change. They said so on there own page!70.162.44.189 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with using Shocker Toys as a source fr a change in ownership and partners, but I have reworded it to make it clear that we are relying on Shocker for that. The claim that an agent stole from them is a different matter. They didn't miss the deadlines because of this, but because of a number of different issues, even if you choose to fully accept their explanations. More importantly, though, we can't name someone as a thief based only on Shocker's account. - Bilby (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a reliable source on a change to what. We have certain people listed as being primaries; if they are no longer primaries for this company, they should be excised from the infobox and the proper people put in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys sound super smart on these things. Respect and thanks for the knowledge yeah.  From what yall saying you dont think that they really changed nothing right.  They just saying they changed to duck bill collectors or whatever.  Like when my brother pretends he's dont live here no more when the man come looking for him.  I got sick google skills and I can't find nothing about them changing owners anywhere else.  Sounds sketchy.  I'm out! 70.162.44.189 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I don't think anything changed; I'm saying that we cannot suggest changes in specific areas, that this or that person may be out, without more specific information. We don't know of any "corporate restructing" because that implies a change in the corporate tree, in what positions are responsible for what activities, rather than changes in ownership. This is a small, privately-held company; one would not expect much coverage of its internals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not trying to start none but.... This is direct from the link "We are working as hard as we can under the direction of a new corporate structure" If you say they didn't change their corporate structure then you saying you dont believe them.  Like you say this is one small company.  How many people working for them?  Maybe 3.  They made a big deal about hiring a salesman!  So if they changed owners and partners and corporate structures, whats there left?  If they for real got new kings, why the new kings not say something?  I run some scams back before. This how its done son.70.162.44.189 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they don't tend to speak in precise terms. All we know of their "new structure" is new ownership/partners, which is not what would generally be termed "restructuring". It would be different if this phrasing were used in a business magazine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah they prolly just a bunch of fools 70.162.44.189 (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I love this talk page so much.Pariah74 (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the Indie Spotlight 2 section. I changed the word "fans" to "customers" to better represent that those who are waiting have already paid for the figures. Pariah74 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought they (Shocker Toys) did actually release the Tick of their Series 2 Indie Spotlight? Shouldn't the page be updated to reflect that as the only figure from Series 2 released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.12.97 (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted?
The site has been replaced by Gbjrtoys.com. Is there any real use for the article now? They're not currently making toys, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.118.130 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the new company appears to be the same as the old, there may be a case for renaming this article, although I'd be more inclined to keep this under the current name and retain the redirect. But generally, no - Wikipedia still provides coverage of defunct companies as notability doesn't change when they go out of business, and while the role of the article may move to providing a historical record rather than a current account, there is still a role to perform. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Two different companies but the shocker article should be kept for historical purposes. I do not think GBJR toys has enough merit for their own page at this time. But GBJR Toys had nothing to do with shocker or their history, this page is not about Geoff Beckett unless we are making him a page which I find highly unlikely. I don't think Web written articles about GBJR toys should be added to this page they are not real media and are just promoting the new company. - JimDavis060 —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As GBJR has been taking over right from Shocker, it is part of the history of Shocker, and is being covered elsewhere as part of that history. Many companies covered in Wikipedia do not have their original name and have been part of a complete transfer, but are nonetheless covered in the same article as they are logically connected. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion?
Given this info ( http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/games-toys/2625-shocker-toys-gbjr-toys-geoff-beckett-52.html#post582452, post by OctaneToys), Shocker Toys was a legitimate business for no more than a couple of years. Shocker Toys has always been more smoke and mirrors than actual substance; this confirms it. Would this page had survived deletion back when if it had been known that the company was not even licensed at the time? Looking back, the entire enterprise appears like an elaborate hoax (to put it kindly). ShockerHelp (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not dependent on legal registration status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but being a listed as a company sort of does. Maybe the article needs to be edited to reflect that Shocker Toys was never really a company (at least for the vast majority of it's existence), but just a dream (if charitable) or (probably more accurately) an elaborate, very long term hoax/scam. ShockerHelp (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't go away. If nothing else, they are notable for being the company they were (You know, with all the issues they've had that you have been happy to 'help' make sure people know about...) They are (were) notable. Now we have to try to keep the article neutral while explaining that. --Onorem (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me? Great.  ShockerHelp (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of what I wrote would possibly make you think that? No. I don't agree with you. --Onorem (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The dictionaries I checked all included some definition of company that can be applied to a business without requiring it to be a registered corporation. Even if that were not the case, all we would have to do is change the first sentence to Shocker Toys was a business that manufactured... or Shocker Toys was a manufacturer of...; the essence of what's being covered has not changed. It doesn't have to have been an LLC to be a legitimate business; many businesses are not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting hung up on certain words. Is a person selling stuff at a local swap meet a business then?  I suppose some are, but then they should be registered as such and pay proper taxes, have the proper permits, etc.  As evident from the paperwork found, Geoff Beckett wasn't doing that. He was mostly just pretending to be a business, company, llc, or whatever.  What's the word for that?  Like Onorem was saying, it becomes difficult to come up with proper, neutral wording to describe just what Shocker Toys was. But I would say, it's not a business, company, llc, etc., as I think most define it. Hence, my bringing it up here to get the help of you fine folk.  Further, during the couple of years that Shocker Toys appears to have been legitimate, weren't multiple articles on Shocker deemed not notable/spam here on Wikipedia, and deleted? Again, it becomes difficult as it appears Wikipedia was used as a means to establish a hoax/whatever it should be called. ShockerHelp (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether Shocker was fulfilling whatever legal obligations it had is not for us to decide, and the legal status of Shocker is not the basis of the article. Yes, someone selling material and taking money is a business. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are familiar with Rick Olney, yes? Should he have a Wikipedia page in your opinion?  If yes, how would it be handled?  I'm asking sincerely and not just rhetorically.  I see a lot of familiarity between toys and comics in regards to "media" coverage (only toys being much less developed than even comics).  Press releases are mostly just posted verbatim as "news" on websites.  Normal media coverage is relegated to puff pieces in the lifestyles section.  Rarely is anything substantive covered in comics.  It's basically never in toys.  Surely, an article could be written about Olney with minor press clippings from here and there.  But how would the negative aspects be handled?  It would be very hard to find citations that couldn't be dismissed as the opinion of some blogger (like Rich or Heidi) or just some posts on a message board.  I fear that it would become positively glowing in it's "neutrality." That's what I think has happened with this article.  ShockerHelp (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your impression of this article. The very long list of cancelled and unreleased products and the lead make it clear that this is a company that rarely released products. Personally, I can't imagine supporting them after reading this article. It certainly isn't weighted down with positive material. - Bilby (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to judge a theoretical Olney article without seeing what sources are put forth; I'm not going to take the time to hunt down sources on an article I have no interest in writing. The comparison between Olney and Shocker is inexact; Shocker, while failing to meet many of their announcements, nonetheless produced a line of toys; as a comic book publisher, Olney produced precisely nothing. As for your suggestions that the article be deleted on the basis of the legal structure of Shocker or due to some excessive neutrality of this article, neither of those would seem to be an appropriate argument for deletion, and the latter is actually quite in line with the goals of Wikipedia. If what you wish is a hit piece on Shocker, then there are plenty of places on the Internet where you could post such a thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So no assumption of good faith on my behalf, I guess, lol.  I don't wish for a hit piece.  I wish for a piece that accurately reflects reality.  Of course the comparison is inexact.  But it's close enough to at least talk about, if one is being honest.  Olney did produce some fanzine or something for awhile and a show or two, didn't he?  I think your behavior in regards to Olney is uncomfortably close to how you are characterizing myself in regards to Geoff Beckett.  (Perhaps that is why you appear to be getting a little angry?)   Anyhow, I'm not trying to get you or anyone else upset.  You convinced me with your first post in reply to me that the article doesn't warrant deletion.   I should have been more clear about that.  I thought we were now having a discussion, as Onorem suggested, on how to get the wording just right.  And please don't put words in my mouth;  I never said anything about "excessive neutrality."  I was discussing the burying of negative facts in a failed attempt at neutrality.  ShockerHelp (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think this is an appropriate forum to be discussing my "behavior in regards to Olney"; this is a page for discussing the editing of a specific Wikipedia page. To attempt to drag whatever you believe about my off-wiki life in matters unrelated to this page as if it's a lever to be used against me in this discussion is quite inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the info should still be "out there". Basically, Geoff Beckett, who owned Shocker Toys, changed the name of the company. It's got the same domain name and everything. Legally, they are the same entity. It's "rebranding" or "re-structuring". The company isn't gone. Google Shocker Toys and the first hit is GBJR. Go to the "store" section of the GBJR site and you're directed to the Shocker toys store. No reason to delete all this stuff because of a change like that. Those are just my 2 cents anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbinebuster287 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Shocker Toys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061028105803/http://www.comicreaders.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=803 to http://www.comicreaders.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=803
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418005445/http://popculturenetwork.com/article.php?story=20110728174807359 to http://popculturenetwork.com/article.php?story=20110728174807359

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shocker Toys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128104333/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/11/20/shocker-toys-indie-spotlight-wave-2-will-have-you-shouting-spo/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/11/20/shocker-toys-indie-spotlight-wave-2-will-have-you-shouting-spo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)