Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badmonkey (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 16 April 2007 (Removed 3RR warning from interested party - unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anchors

Hi,

We had complaints to the Foundation about including one manufacturer and not another. I suggest this paragraph is rewritten in an "encyclopedic" tone (with links to studies by professionals, experts etc.), this should deter would-be advertisers. Also, you should strive to describe general types of anchors instead of particular models. David.Monniaux 10:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anchoring

Please refrain from adding the biased and weighted chart to the anchor article, purely independant charts and images are welcome, but a chart using data that is made with modified data by a anchor manufacturer is no longer independant. Misplaced Pages is not a place to advertise or tout a product, it is an enclypedia. Your edit wars with Alaid POIRAUD who is also a biased anchor manufactuer should come to a stop, I hope you agree and I will happily bring in a third party to arbitrate if nessisary. You have managed to block your competitor because you understand wiki policy and procedure better then he does, but that does not make you right in your POV. Both of you have made inappropriate and biased edits and I hope this stops. Russeasby 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I wont deny that the image/chart is acceptable for uploading to wikipedia or any wikimedia project, if ronca allows that, then it is okay. What I object to is its inclusion in the anchor article. As you admit the chart and data is "scaled" for anchor size. Sail and West Marine did not publish their results "scaled", thus a company whos anchor is included in that test, personally scaling the research and adding it to the article is biased. If Sail or West Marine did the scaling, it would then be a relevent third party source and acceptable encycopedic content, but the company itsself offering their own scaled data is NOT. Even more so when that scaled data puts their product on top(which I admit it was basicly on top before, but the scaled data puts it even more so on top). Please keep in mind that this is an encylopedia, not a discussion board, data presented here should come from third parties, any entry you make for your own design (assuming you are Craig Smith) is suspect. You can say what you want on the various message boards, as can Alain, but this is an encylopedia, not a discussion board and standards do exist here which will not work in your favor if you really want to push this. Russeasby 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. You state that the data is scaled, but this is entirely untrue. The data remains unchanged. Only its presentation as a ratio of size to holding power alters to the SAIL method. This is certainly a better solution since the anchors tested vary greatly in size. It is unfair and false to imply that Rocna is attempting to present biased, or worse, modified, data. Badmonkey 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Adding a note on my talk page suggesting my reverts to your spam are vandalism? Through this process I have kept civil and within wikipedia guidelines. Your addition to my talk page suggesting vandalism is abuse while I sought out third party arbitration. Russeasby 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal of valid NPOV content (which has been present and accepted for a considerable amount of time, during multiple other edits) is rightly considered vandalism. Misplaced Pages requires that warnings are given before any resolution action be initiated. Badmonkey 06:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You used the same logic and better understanding of wiki guidlines to ensure your competitor Alain POIROID who designed the Spade anchor which is a rival of your design got banned. While I disagree with much of Alains edits to this article just as much as I disagree with your edits, you cannot hide behind policy and put tags on peoples pages to suggest you are right. I have made no vandalism to this article and I am following proper guidelines to resolution to this article, I did not violate the 3 revert rule (which you have), I have vandalized nothing (and your suggestion I have is juvinile). You are actually a member of a discussion board which I administer and have not once suggested your removal for you touting your product (likewise Alains). But when it comes to wikipedia, here I have my utopian thoughts of an encylopedia and even though you spam disucssion boards all over the internet, even one I run, here you have to remain encylopedic. I could care less about your personal issues with Alain, I remain neautral here as I do elsewhere, but both of you are wrong here. Your association with the company whos product your basicly touting here violates wikipedia policy. Russeasby 07:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal of valid NPOV content (which has been present and accepted for a considerable amount of time, during multiple other edits - I am not trying to add it, you are trying to delete it) is rightly considered vandalism. Your comments concerning copyright of the data are incorrect. Furthermore your attempts to associate my username with Rocna Anchors is contrary to Misplaced Pages's intrinsic right to anonymity and is an effective personal attack. Lastly, the 3 revert rule has not been broken; an edit was made in an attempt to improve the content in question by improving its references. Your continued deletion of this content can only be considered vandalism and your actions illustrate you are anything but neutral. Badmonkey 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I removed NPOV content is completely irrational and wrong, per things I have already stated. Thus my removal of YOUR companies biased version of chart, using data NOT released by west marine or SAIL and entirely in violation of their copyright (which you were only granted for commercial advertisment purposes) my reverts are completely legitmate and your additions are actually illegal, if nessisary I have no issues with contact sail and west marine on this matter. I do suggest you remove your edits yourself. I will say here not I am NOT affiliated with ANY anchor company, Badmonkey is affiliated with Ronca anchors and Alaid POIROID is affliated in the past with Spade Anchors, both of their contributions are BIASED. I own neither of their anchors and have no bias towards either, both should not be contributing to wikipedia with anything reguarding their products! Russeasby 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above arguments stand. Your statements are mostly incorrect and you continue to ignore the cicumstances surrounding your sudden involvement. Furthermore your attempts to associate my username with Rocna Anchors is contrary to Misplaced Pages's intrinsic right to anonymity and is an effective personal attack. Badmonkey 07:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You uploaded the image and gave copyright to said image for Ronca anchors. If you are not Craig Smith, or anyone else associated with the company Ronca Anchors in New Zealand, you DO have assoication with them in some way by means of being given permission to publish their copyrighted data. Which IS in turn owned by SAIL Magazine and West Marine, which is attributed in the image, but NEITHER company has given permission for this data to be shared noncommercially on wikipedia and certainly has not granted permission for said data to be MODIFIED for presentation on wikipedia for COMMERCIAL purposes. If you feel my statements are incorrect then you should suggest why they are specificly. Russeasby 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK

Ok, sorry about all the attempts.....it was sucked into several edits. You should be set. If it is posted again, report to AIV and point to this comment. The user (Alain POIRAUD) must be blocked if it happens again. - auburnpilot talk 07:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending edits from the page history. If I've missed anything, please let me know on my talk page or by email. Be sure to include a diff directing me to the edit. - auburnpilot talk 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Anchor test results

Badmonkey, Thanks for the note. I regard both you and Alain as experts in the field of anchor design, whereas my only knowledge of anchoring comes from the wiki article. So when you say the critical factor is weight or volume, and he says it's surface area, that indicates that there is no agreement on what the "best" scaling factor is for holding power. Perhaps you have a neutral source to support your stance? I think Russeasby makes a good point that if there truly was a universally accepted scaling factor the independent study would have applied it to their data. It also makes sense that scaling the data can be subjective since different customers have different needs. While you say that the first chart in the Sail article provides the best summary of results, I still think the subsequent scope and location charts show that there are cases where a different design produces better results. Even the article concludes every boat should carry at least three different anchor designs and weights to deal with a wide variety of bottom types. Similarly, the Power and Motoryacht article states we never intended our test to be the definitive word but rather one more piece of data for you to consider when choosing an anchor.

While I appreciate your expertise in the anchor article and I defend your right to make neutral contributions to it, you have to admit that you are walking a fine line of Conflict of Interest (as is Alain). I don't necessarily think I should have the final word on what is right, but it definitely shouldn't be someone with close ties to one manufacturer when there is disagreement with another. Hoof Hearted 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bicycle wheel

I have just written a few words about the notorious rims in bamboo bikes. Have fun removing the info from the article ;) Regards - Mohylek 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use?

Hi. Could you review your inclusion of ] on HMS Cornwall (F99) and Royal Navy? As far as I can see the ship can be reasonably represented by ] which suggests that we probably should not be using it (see Misplaced Pages:Fair use). Cheers. Andreww 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Image:HMS Cornwall F99 July 2006.jpg is a pretty useless shot... just from the dock at a low angle, and only representing the forward facing superstructure and bow. I introduced Image:HMS_Cornwall.jpg because it is a good shot of the entire ship. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on that one. I see no reason to keep Image:HMS Cornwall.jpg, we have a free alternative, could create a free better alternative and are in the business of creating free content. I've tagged the image as replaceable (and added the blurb below). Feel free to provide a convincing case that it is not. Cheers, Andreww 07:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:HMS Cornwall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Cornwall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Andreww 07:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue continues - A suggestion:

I can’t more agree with the Russeasby’s coments: this disputed part on Modern Anchors should remain NEUTRAL

I would suggest:

1° - First to remove the photo of the Rocna and to replace it by, for example the Bügel which has been on the Market for at least 10 years, and which is more representative of the “modern” anchors (I may supply the photos)

I suggest also to change the text for the following one:

In recent years, there has been something of a spurt in anchor design. Primarily designed to set very quickly, then generate high holding power, these anchors (mostly proprietary inventions still under patent) are finding homes with users of small to medium sized vessels.

• The German designed Bügel, first built by steel producer WASI, has a sharp tip for penetrating weed, and features a roll-bar which orients the anchor to the correct attitude on the seabed

• The Bulwagga is a unique design featuring three flukes instead of the regular two. It has performed well in tests by independent sources.

• The Spade is a French design which has proved successful since 1996. This anchor features a demountable shank and the choice of galvanized steel, stainless steel, or aluminium construction.

• Several new models such as: - the French (Sword) - from New Zealand (Rocna – Manson Supreme) - Australia (SARCA) or - South America (Araia), recently appeared on the market. Although having only little experience, these new models seem to have excellent characteristics of penetration and holding and could become the modern anchors of the future.

• All links to Manufacturers web sites should be removed

I will be very pleased to receive your comments to my proposal.

Alain Poiraud Hylas 03:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I would like to point out for you to please review WP:COI specificly WP:COI#Suggesting_changes_to_articles and WP:COI#Consequences_of_ignoring_this_guideline, though I hope you read this policy in its entirety. Russeasby 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)