Talk:Roger Sweet

POV

This page is (hilariously) mean-spirited in its language and veers a bit too close to original research. MKV 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing mean-spirited language (looks like there's been a lot of editing going on), just an insanely long and largely off-topic screed which smells distinctly of personal involvement. The primary section (weirdly titled "The Originator: The Proof.") strongly feels like it wasn't originally written for Wikipedia. The second section (even more weirdly titled "Reply – No Controversy – The Proof") is some kind of message board rebuttle to criticism of the primary section, and it most definitely does not belong in the article itself. The whole article is laughably inappropriate for Wikipedia, reads like the website of a mild schizophrenic, and doesn't even include biographical data on its subject. I'm halfway to nominating it for deletion. 159.53.110.142 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the ranting, irrational, biased, negative view of the above POV, and the suppressively negative, biased, un-edited Roger Sweet article, the editing of the article was a rational, factual, positive, and welcome addition. It was a fun, informative, and enlightening read to learn the editing writer's version of how Sweet came up with He-Man and Masters. The common denominator of the above two POV'S and the original unedited Wikipedia Roger Sweet article is that these writers make negative statements which in actuality are personal, biased opinions unsubstantiated by facts or evidence. Conversely, in the editing of the Roger Sweet article the statements are made based on actual facts and documented evidence. Further, it should be remembered that Roger Sweet did not, and would not, have put an article in Wikipedia about himself or the Mastering The Universe book. That act was done incognito by someone else. That writer claims that there is a "controversy" in regard to whether Roger Sweet actually originated the He-Man/Masters concept, and how much credit Sweet should receive for his contributions. What that writer is implying, and accusing Sweet of, is that Sweet in the Mastering The Universe book, and elsewhere, is not telling the truth. Therefore, in the Wikipedia spirit of free exchange of viewpoints concerning a subject, the Sweet views deserve a place, as well. Further, if blatantly false or factually unsubstantiated statements are made, specific replies to each of those statments should be admissable in the body of the article, the part that most people read. Otherwise, the article loses its credibility. That being the case, the editing of the article is the length it needs to be to factually prove that Sweet did indeed originate and name He-Man and originate the general concept of the Masters Of The Universe. In addition, the editing also substantiates further by adding some of Sweet's other contributions to the He-Man/Masters line. Instead of the reader automatically assuming that the editing of the article is unjustified or too long, he should be unbiased and actually read and study all of the article's information and learn about it.63.64.127.15 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)63.64.127.15 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) User:63.64.127.15|63.64.127.15]] 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To Rindle The Red: On July 19, 2007, once again you deleted additions to the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article. You cited as your reason, "Again, unneeded detail". On the contrary, the information that you deleted is a necessary addition to the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article. The reason is that several people, including Sweet, such as Mark Taylor, Ted Mayer, Derek Gable, and possibly others, such as Donald Glut, all have claimed to have originated the concept of He-Man and the Masters Of The Universe. But, not backed by solid evidence, all of these claims are nothing but personal opinions. However, only "Sweet's claims are substantiated as evidence by pertinent Mattel documents, illustrations, and photographs". Several of these pieces of evidence were cited in the Mastering The Universe book. And, others have been cited in the various interviews that Sweet has had regarding the book.

Cleanup

Seriously, this thing needs major attention or I'm just gonna cut it down to the bare essentials. It's far too long, sourced entirely from one book and written extremely poorly. As it stands it is useless as an encyclopedia article. Rhindle The Red 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Relative to the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article, you can go in the direction of, "this thing"..."I'm gonna cut it down to the bare essentials". And, you can suggest cleanup of the article. But, with the editing that has been done this article has been cleaned up. The editing of the article is not "far too long" as is explained in the above positive POV: The editing needs to be the length that it is to properly present the other views. Further, the editing of the article is very well written - and very well organized. Also, the editing is factual and informative and makes for an extremely useful encyclopedia article if the reader really wants to find out about Roger Sweet relative to his actual contributions to He-Man and the Masters Of The Universe. In addition, if you had actually read the Mastering The Universe book and the editing of the Roger Sweet article, you would have found out that the editing of the article is not "sourced entirely from one book". There is a great deal of information in that editing that is not in the book.63.64.127.15 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)63.64.127.15 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. There are many ways that this article is deficient.

1. It lacks a proper introduction.
2. It lacks a proper tone.
3. Paragraphs are alternatively too long (rambling on and on) or too short (one sentence).
4. Sections are too long and unfocused.
5. It is, frankly, poorly written. (Example: "The Mattel Most Creative Toy award in 1984 was received by Sweet for his origination creativity of the Masters Dragon Walker.")
6. It strays off topic, discussing the nature of creativity, which is not relevant to the subject matter.
7. Extrene POV: It declares many things to be the "best", "most creative", etc., which is a subjective opinion, not properly encyclopedic.
8. The entire "Reply – No Controversy – The Proof" section has absolutely no business being in an Encyclopedia article.

You say there are several sources, yet I see none listed or mentioned (besides reviews of the book, which are not actual sources). If you understand the subject so well, feel free to fix the article. If not, please do not interfere in an honest attempt to make the Wikipedia a more successful endeavor. Rhindle The Red 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

Rhindle The Red claims that he is suggesting and making changes to the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article for the good of Wikipedia, using proper Wikipedia editing policy and guidelines.

Yet, what he did on February 23, 2007, in Wikipedia terminology, is called, “blanking” a page or article.

The following is a quote from the Wikipedia Glossary. This definition is reached by doing the following steps: Go to the Wikipedia homepage, Help, Help Contents, Frequently Asked Questions, Getting started, Glossary of Wikipedia terms, Wikipedia Glossary, Blanking. “Blanking. Removing all content from a page. Newcomers often do this accidentally. On the other hand, if blanking an article is done in bad faith, it is vandalism. If blanking is done to a vandalized brand new page, it is maintenance, and the page will be deleted by an admin within a few hours if no dispute arises. {{Delete}} should be added to the blanked page to draw attention to it, rather than just blanking it. Newcomers often mistake blanking for deletion.”

As stated above, on February 23, 2007 the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article was blanked. More specifically, this means that 29 pages of the Roger Sweet article were blanked by Rhindle The Red. These 29 pages contained an original “Controversy” viewpoint and an edited edition to that viewpoint which added a second different Roger Sweet viewpoint. This second viewpoint was composed of extremely informative, factual information concerning Roger Sweet and his contribution to He-Man and the Masters Of The Universe concept based on facts and documents, not opinions.

These blanked 29 pages then were replaced by Rhindle The Red with an entirely new and different third viewpoint.

Before the above cited blanking occurred, on February 10, 2007, Rhindle The Red, had put two labels above the edited Wikipedia Roger Sweet article, which contained the first two viewpoints. One label stated, “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards”. The second label stated, “This article or a section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject”. However, in approximately twelve days before the Rhindle The Red blanking occurred no one came forward, either as an expert or not, to clean up, add to, or change the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article.

It appears that the only way that Rhindle The Red was going to get the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article radically changed in favor of his own viewpoint was to do it himself by blanking the first two versions, then adding his own different, short, third viewpoint rendition.

In regard to the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article, the Roger Sweet viewpoint has consistently tried to enter the true factual information and Mattel reference documents and prototype models description, and other information, in regard to Roger Sweet and his contribution to the Mattel He-Man / Masters Of The Universe concept and line which are necessary to prove the validity to Sweet’s contribution.

However, every time the Roger Sweet viewpoint has been added, Rhindle The Red viewpoint has disagreed with and thwarted it.

By his own blanking action, Rhindle The Red has largely wiped out Sweet’s viewpoint and contributions to He-Man and the Masters Of The Universe concept and line.

And in addition, Rhindle The Red has wiped out not only the Roger Sweet viewpoint but the entire first, original “Controversy” viewpoint in the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article, as well.

Hopefully, in the Wikipedia Roger Sweet article Wikipedia proper grammar, writing style, and editing policy is not being used by Rhindle The Red as an excuse and pretext to largely wipe out Sweet’s viewpoint and contributions to the He-Man and the Masters Of The Universe concept and line and to the article.

It is obvious that the Roger Sweet viewpoint and the Rhindle The Red viewpoint are strongly opposed and show a powerful “conflict of interest”.

In spite of the above, in the Wikipedia spirit of free exchange of viewpoints and the American democratic freedom of speech, and in observation of rules of civility, an attempt is being made to resolve the above conflict. In deference to Rhindle The Red, the Roger Sweet viewpoint is first of all leaving the Rhindle The Red third viewpoint intact, not retaliating by blanking it. Also, in deference to him, that third viewpoint is put first in the article. Then, as there are two opposed viewpoints currently involved, a reply is being given to the Rhindle The Red viewpoint by the Roger Sweet viewpoint, breaking it down into specific and inclusive responses to each Rhindle The Red paragraph or sentence. Hopefully, this method will allow all three viewpoints to be given free expression. The Rhindle The Red, Controversy, and the Roger Sweet viewpoints then can be free to give any further replies to each other’s views. However, the only condition is that none blank the other’s views in the article. Another benefit is that a Wikipedia reader of the article can view all three viewpoints and freely make up his own mind as to what he thinks and / or which he prefers.

Age

According to http://trex.id.iit.edu/alumni/interviews/sweet_interview_sep05.html, DOB is certainly not 1955, although exact date is not given.