Corrections and comments from Eric - promo event. (Spoilers)

[jaydisc]

Wow! Great thread! How awesome of Eric to comment back!

Based on my understanding of what a wiki is, wouldn't it be better to contribute than to complain or critique?

[dirge]

Secondly - Kup, you are making a big deal out of something that very little is officially known about.

Actually, kup has already spoken to me about this... he was really more confused about conflicting information than anything else. The wiki and interview were (on the surface) giving conflicting information, and kup was seeking clarification

[griffin]

Hopefully Eric was able to clear things up (for him and everyone else).

[Kyle]

I felt it was already quite clear before, but could also see how some of us could have got confused. Thanks for the clarification.

[griffin]

I've editted out part of my posting above that directly criticised Kup, as it wasn't necessary to confront him like that over something that may well have just been an oversight.
A fair bit of the rest of the posting could be removed as well, but it goes towards the point of the quoted text.

It has also been pointed out to me that I shouldn't be telling people NOT to criticise the tfwiki if there is a rational reason behind that criticism (like if the admin of the wiki edits out something that should be in it). That is a valid point, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't giving the impression that the tfwiki is off limits to critism.
My posting though, did mean to say that *if* the wiki's content is not being contradicted by an official source, it isn't fair to be criticising it over content that is otherwise considered the *only* available info.

[kup]

it appears that some people are on the boards are confused about the TFWiki page updates. Particularly Board member KUP seems to have an issue with very specific clarification on the entry.

Feel free to post this info.

Paraphrasing - He states that the entry "Toys that Eric has designed" is misleading and implies that i have sole ownership over a design. He also gives a link to an interview with Alex Kubalsky in which he claims to have designed 2 particular toys that also appear on my list... KUP seems to want additional info to clarify what role i played in the design of these guys...

Explanation - as many of your board members know and have tried to explain, ALL TF toys are a collaboration between Takara and Hasbro. This means that every toy that is released by Hasbro has one Hasbro Designer and one Takara Designer involved per project. (the exceptions are obvious with Takara's exclusive projects like Alternity and Mickey Prime, etc.) Therefore it is not inaccurate for Alex and myself to both have credit for designing the same toy.

***Dirty Digger says that he'll chat with Alex when Alex returns to AU. I'm sure that you'll find Alex will have the same explanation as what i'm giving now.***

Now, perhaps KUP is onto something as far as what specific roles we all play in TF Design. I think it's a little tedious and probably anal retentive request... but All Hasbro Design roles could be described as Visionary, Conceptual Artists, Big Picture, Brand Managers... Likewise, all Takara Design Roles could be described as Creative Design/Engineers, Meticulous in their precision, Detail oriented, Model Developers. But no matter what labels you slap on something, it really doesn't do any justice to the collaborative efforts both teams put in. These labels create a generalization of our practice, and truth be told, all parties do much more than i just listed. The way our teams work together is a work of Art...

If you guys want, feel free to update my wiki site as you see fit, but note that there is nothing technically inaccurate about anything in the entry as it exists right now.

Thank you very much to Eric for the Clarification above. He has succesfully answered my query.

That is all I wanted to know, I wasn't much concerned with editing the wiki article or disproving anyone. My inquiry was just to obtain clarification on why two designers on separate articles were being credited with the same toys and that has now been elegantly answered by Eric.

[GoktimusPrime]

It has also been pointed out to me that I shouldn't be telling people NOT to criticise the tfwiki if there is a rational reason behind that criticism (like if the admin of the wiki edits out something that should be in it). That is a valid point, and I want to make it clear that I wasn't giving the impression that the tfwiki is off limits to critism.
My posting though, did mean to say that *if* the wiki's content is not being contradicted by an official source, it isn't fair to be criticising it over content that is otherwise considered the *only* available info.

...don't even start me about what's wrong with TF wiki... *shudder* but I agree that all criticisms against it should be justifiable (as with criticisms against anything really).

[FFN]

...don't even start me about what's wrong with TF wiki... *shudder* but I agree that all criticisms against it should be justifiable (as with criticisms against anything really).

What's wrong with the wiki now?

[TheDirtyDigger]

What's wrong with the wiki now?

Well personally I find it to be an awesome site and the most informative place about TF's on the net but if you want to know what's wrong with it I would have to say not enough nudity or items about me. (or both together)

[jacksplatt11]

What's wrong with the wiki now?

Needs more pictures with funny comments, and more of her:

if you want to know what's wrong with it I would have to say not enough nudity

Agreed