User talk:Oldoldoldschool

Welcome
Hello Oldoldoldschool and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Disparaging content
You can't just add disparaging content about an entire industry without citing some reliable sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WikiDan61.
 * I do not intend to disparage en entire industry. I am only talking about a specific problem and type of company that is taking advantage of people and causing major problems for those in the mascot manufacturing industry.  Everyone from a mascot company will repeat my complaint about this type of practice..
 * Can you help me with how to cite this source? If you do a simple google search, you will find Chinese companies that are selling Barney (a photograph of the real one on the TV show) for $239. - shoppajama.com. They are selling the "real" Sully from Monsters Inc for $449. Rex costume is selling the "real" Mickey Mouse costume for $139. If you go to https://www.shopmascot.com/ you will see mascots selling for hundreds of dollars.  The "real" Bumble from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is selling for $199.  DHGate is selling knockoffs of Nintendo mascots that a legitimate company would only sell the Nintendo for thousands of dollars.  You will also see well-known college mascots selling for hundreds of dollars.  Don't think for a second a college would allow their licensed brand be sold to anyone who has a couple of hundred dollars.
 * Several of the pictures are ones I personally took, and cost thousands to design and create for the real customers. I even see some $20,000 amusement park mascots we personally created selling for under $500.
 * All of the different mascot company management meet and talk when they attend industry trade shows and have the same complaint. They are all trying to get google to stop allowing this fraud and image theft.  They want to preventive knock-off complainers from stealing images and confusing hte mascot consumer.  There seems to be nothing we can do since they steal images and then pop up under many different names.  They are even getting good at removing our watermarks and logos.  The fake companies all claim to be US based but a simple search shows many of their addresses are vacant lots or other company addresses.
 * This truly has become a huge industry problem over the past 2-3 years.
 * I do not intend to disparage the industry, the industry is a great one and I have been involved in it for over 30 years.  I am simply pointing out that there are many new fraudsters that steal images and are driving all the legitimate mascot companies crazy by confusing customers.
 * We receive (as do most mascot companies) several calls a day from upset customers who thought they were getting what they saw in the picture. Some of them are so confused when they see that we created the real character and yet they purchased the knock-off unlicensed version at this type of site.  In addition, customers will send the images to mascot companies as an example of what they are looking for, and then be surprised when the real pricing for that type of mascot is several times the fake site pricing.
 * Here is an example: https://www.shopmascot.com/Easter-Blue-Wendell-Rabbit-Mascot-Costume
 * Here is the real manufacturer who has to now put their logo on everything to try to prevent image theft. https://marylenmascotcostumes.com/1100-bunny-rabbit/
 * They have to state: "BEWARE of other web sites using our pictures and selling inferior knock-offs at lower prices. They are NOT Marylen® quality costumes, made in the USA!" all over their site due to this problem.
 * There are many, many more legitimate US based companies encountering this same problem.
 * Can you assist me in how to cite this? Thanks.
 * Search for "Mascot costume" on google and you will see many of these companies that are very obviously fraudsters.
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=mascot+costume&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu8sPuudf-AhVIFTQIHSmODVcQ1TV6BQgCEJ8B&biw=2064&bih=1330&dpr=2 Oldoldoldschool (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you don't intend to disparage an entire industry, only companies in certain parts of the world that are involved in the industry. Scams are everywhere. The existence of fraudulent companies selling counterfeit products in any particular industry is not notable. If you can find a reliable source showing that counterfeiting is particularly heinous in your industry, you may cite that source and add appropriate material. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, content about how to recognize and avoid such counterfeits is not appropriate material. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK... I will look for that and add it shortly.
 * Note that I am not disparaging parts of the world, I am disparaging counterfeiting and image theft.
 * These scam outfits are all over the world and the mascot industry has a huge problem with it. Just look at Time Square and see how many fake unlicensed performers are there.  The copyright holders are cracking down on these individuals who make and use fakes if they are in the USA but are often powerless when the entity is outside the US.
 * Please reinstate all of the other material I added, since much of it had nothing to do with the scams. Oldoldoldschool (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of your additions had any sources, so I will not be restoring it. You are free to restore it at any time you choose, but if you can't provide reliable sources, Wikipedia's VERIFIABILITY policy allows any editor to remove any unverifiable content at any time. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The original article was obviously written by a Canadian, since it was Canadian centric and only cited Canadian outdate sources. It also leaves out the majority of the US mascots industry and famous mascot icons.
 * As someone who is considered an expert in the industry with 30 years experience, I know what I am talking about. I am often cited in articles and teach classes.  I have authored books and white papers plus advised some of the largest companies and schools in the world own mascot development.  I have personally been involved in designing well over 50% of the US mascots mentioned in the article.
 * I am unsure what your involvement is in the industry, however if you were heavily involved in a professional level you would realize that the existing page is sorely lacking, outdated, and does not reflect the current market / situation. I don't know if you are a fan, interested individual, or actually in the industry.  You do not mention your level of involvement or experience.
 * The page is missing huge amounts of information on franchise mascots, college mascots, US government mascots, US military mascots, internationally known iconic mascots, TV mascot costumes, and non-profit icons. The history is wrong in several places and cites sources that are not correct.  Just because someone wrote something on the internet, does not mean citing it is reality.
 * The page lacks flow and coherence. It is all over the place and reads like a fan page written by a college student.  It is missing so much information, that anyone who is actually involved in creation many of these iconic mascots (as I do) realizes that it is 75% wrong.
 * Since you insist on correcting my additions without allowing me time to revise and cite, I suppose the page will have to stay in it's sorry outdated incorrect state. I was planning on adding far more up to date information, and this was a first attempt to learn how to update a page while writing off the cuff.  I have far more sources than I would ever need to back up my experience.
 * I won't waste my time trying to improve the page. This is why some Wikipedia pages are not always held in high regard.  It appears that you enjoy editing pages and I applaud you for that.  Please try to temper your zeal for following the rules and understand that some people are experts in the field and not in Wikipedia editing and sources.  Give them some leeway and help them instead of deleting information before discussing it.  This is the "discussion" page and I thought Wikipedia editors encouraged discussion and wanted to help experts add to the wealth of information.
 * In the industry, I work with icons in all industries including tech. I will be asking Jimmy about how to add information and how to work with editors next time he and I cross paths. 2603:301D:1000:ED00:85E8:FB91:C044:707 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not at all involved in the field; I am just a random Wikipedia editor who came across your changes and found them problematic for the reasons already discussed. I don't disagree with you that the existing mascot page needs improvement. Please feel free to do so, following Wikipedia's guidelines. If you are, indeed, a published expert in the field, you may cite your published books and/or articles as verification of the changes you'd like to make. I'm not sure which article you feel has a Canadian bias; this discussion has involved two articles: Mascot and Costumed performer. I don't see a Canadian bias in either article. If anything, they exhibit more of a US and Japan bias, but that may reflect the heavy presence of mascots and costumed performers in those cultures, or it may well reflect Wikipedia's well-documented systemic bias. In any case, you are free to edit any article to address any bias you perceive, and you are free to cite reliable sources (even your own publications, if they are, indeed, reliable) to back up your changes. However, I would continue to argue against large-scale changes regarding forfeiting in the industry. That can be mentioned (citing appropriate sources, of course), but it should not occupy more than a sentence or two. In general, undue weight should not be given to aspects of a topic; the amount of coverage in Wikipedia should reflect the amount of coverage available in the reliable sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WikiDan61. I am not sure what I said or did to set you off in the first place, but if I did I apologize.  I am wondering if you are non-US due to your focus on world location and perhaps I inadvertently mentioned a topic, wrote something that was misinterpreted, or stated something else that you took umbrage with.
 * It kind of reminds me of. "flame war on Usenet in the 1990's". I remember when many passionately argued their case on talk.whatever.iamright  etc. In hindsight, I don't miss wasting my days and nights on that system.
 * Your perspective on the industry is very different as an outsider, and I can see how you may think that it is biased toward a particular nation or continent. I work mainly in the US, however I work with mascots all over the world as well.  The mascot industry did start in the US and has spread from there over the past 25 years so US centricity is very relevant.  Over the years I assisted several UK companies start their way creating mascots as well as started locations in other countries too.
 * What I am feeling, is that a different mindset is needed in order to improve the knowledge base. From my perspective, the entire Wikipedia editorial community needs to lighten up on the newbie experts when they make their first post.  Help, direction, and encouragement brings about better results.  As one of my friends at Wikipedia just told me on the phone; I have 7 days to fix up my contributions and add citations.  They also told me that most editors would be helpful and assist me in creating better content.  Deletion policy
 * If you had given me a constructive criticism instead of simply deleting the material without notice, things would have gone much better. I could have then added citations as well as clarified material.  I have far more information (as in thousands of documents and papers) that would add to the legitimacy and factual accuracy of this page.
 * As I was told, Wikipedia management wants grey haired 60 something year olds like me who have spent most of their life in a specific field adding information to the site. Individuals like myself who have taught at Ivy League schools, mentored many college students and started several companies in the field have insights that may not be apparent to the average person.  I personally would prefer to read thoughts and facts from experts in the field.  In a similar way Quora was started that way when Adam and Charlie conceived of it.  I was invited early to that site as an expert and was part of the Beta testing / fine-tuning of the site.  As an aside, back then Jimmy Wales (who was very involved at that stage) did DM me a few times own several subjects, but that is as far as it went.  I am not naive enough to think both sites are or should be the same, however on Quora, expert opinions are up or downvoted to give them credence.  Often the fact that a well recognized individual who is respected by many is enough.  Additional opinions and fine tuning information via editing would probably help too.
 * Not every single fact can be cited with an academic paper, news source, web page, etc.  When you read the majority of Wikipedia articles, you will find many non-cited sentences in-between cited ones.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a continuum of citations of fact, otherwise Google would suffice. As we both know, just because you can cite something found in an internet article, it does not always mean it is true.  I do not plan to add to this page with "it's true because I am an expert - so there!".  Would you prefer I use https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RSOPINION&redirect=no. JK.  The majority of the sources found on this page are 5,10, even 20 years old.  As someone with a long time in the specific field, I can actually have a good idea who the person(s) are who added much of the information based on their writing style and feelings.  They have their own personal biases and world view as well... That doesn't make it wrong or right, it is simply their perspective.
 * The page could improve and receive more up to date information as well as better citations if the sections were rearranged into better sub-categories. There is far more to the topic than currently found on the page.  I could be 10 times the size containing a lot more relevant up to date information.  I could paste a 45 page paper I wrote for a Fortune 100 company regarding mascots, but that wouldn't make any sense. I have thousands of references to prove my point as well as knowledge and contacts who can back me up.
 * You are obviously very passionate and as I can see you are a computer expert. I applaud your efforts to keep the site clean, concise, and up to date.  I would not suppose to go into a C++ Wikipedia page and edit it for spelling and punctuation.  It isn't my field of expertise - although I did own a TRS80 with a cassette drive in the 1980's and wrote Basic programs ;)
 * The site could be so much more if academics and experts were helped or even asked for information to add to the content. Perhaps editors or "helpers" could talk with experts, interview them, and learn from them.  This way they could help the information get onto the site before the old experts die.  I am far more apt to offer advice and references on topics if I am asked nicely.  I make a point of helping the next generation "come up" while listening to what they add to the conversation.  I thoroughly enjoy watching young people who I mentored and encouraged 25 years ago, rise up in the industry.
 * At this point I feel beaten down and don't know if I really want to fight with you and waste my valuable time to add to the wealth of knowledge. It's a shame, since I suspect many others who are experts in their own fields may run into this situation when starting to try to add to the information with good intents.
 * Best wishes in all you do. Oldoldoldschool (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)