User talk:Russeasby/Archive1

Is Annie Hill notable.
Her book "Voyaging on a Small Income has a strong cult following amoung cruiser, and wanna-be-cruisers. This is evidenced by her 'fan base' found in the YahooGroup 'Low Cost Voyaging' and evidenced by the demand for her long out of print book ultimately being reprinted (even twice, ISBN 978-1888671377 and ISBN 978-0901281005).  I would speculate that only a few 'cruising books' have enjoyed enough demand to go into multiple printings.  Though I respect your opinion which may differ from mine, but I offer these objective reasons that she is notable.  BruceHallman 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Record Holders
Can I ask you to leave this piece of information in, I have as I said previously sought permission from wikipedia to edit this section and they agreed, I respect your opinion but the information I have given cannot be questioned as inaccurate therefore, there is no grounds to delete it other than you personally don't like this section. Please obey wikipedia rules and respect other peoples input to the site, if you have legitimate concern regarding acurrancy then please feel free to inform me, but do not delete someone elses work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duncanbruce (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Barn Star Award
Hello. Thanks for sending me that Barn Star Award. I really appreciate that. I had never heard of it before, as yours was my first Barn Star Award ever on Wikipedia. After receiving it, I looked it up to see what it is all about. So, once again, thanks for taking the time to send it. It is good to be appreciated and to see that my work is taken note of. As an aside, I do have a sincere interest in the Academy Awards topic and thus it is important to me that the article is good, clean, accurate, informative, etc. Thanks again for noticing my work -- I appreciate that you took the time to send me the Barn Star. Take care. Joe (JosephASpadaro 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Removal of Content from Anchor
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

The chart of results from West Marine testing is created by Rocna Anchors but for all intents and purposes is identical to the graph published by SAIL (refer SAIL October 2006, page 63). This data is independent and unmodified. The Rocna chart simply displays the data as scaled to a fixed anchor size, which accounts for variation in the weights of anchors tested. This improves the comparability and fairness of the results and avoids unduly criticizing the CQR, XYZ, and other types.

Use of this graph, permission of which has been granted, also allows legal publication, as SAIL has not to my knowledge been approached concerning copyright.

Badmonkey 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the above was added by a biased anchor manufactuer who suggests my reverts to his edits are vandalism solely becuse they do not support his biased poiint of view. Russeasby 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary removal of valid NPOV content is rightly considered vandalism. Wikipedia requires that warnings are given before any resolution action be initiated. Your insistance of deletion of content which has been present and accepted for a considerable amount of time, during multiple other edits, in response to external influence by a commercial stakeholder, is disingeneous - and biased itself. Badmonkey 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your rant on my talk page, 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 Wikipedia's intrinsic right to anonymity and is an effective personal attack. Badmonkey 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whaling
Hi! I really know nothing about whaling and don't care that much either, but I stumbled onto the page and was horrified by how long, rambling, and repetitious certain sections of it were. I was just trying to neaten it up, not to change the content at all. As I neatened it, I removed things I strongly suspected were incorrect. As I said in response to you on the talk page, I think the version after my edit looked awful to you because it was finally clear enough to notice all of the problems. I really don't think I added any weasel words: I know I removed many. So, I'm not planning on adding any sources to the page, but I might be interested in neatening up other sections. I'll only neaten things up, though, if they won't be immediately reverted. I would be really grateful if you'd edit my edits, but reverting them will simply discourage me from improving Whaling. And that page needs some serious improvement. Enuja 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Help request

 * Sorry Russeasby, do you have a specific question that you need help with? Hoof Hearted 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding to my help request. I am attempting to get a third party to comment on a dispute, which I have done before but the process seems to have changed.  Before I had to put a template on the talk page and fill it out as well as list the dispute on another page.  I cannot seem to find this now.  I did find a different page though with a different process but have yet to have anyone respond or offer assistance.  Perhaps you can point me in the right direction for getting help resolving a dispute? Dispute is at Anchor and involves someone adding biased commercial information to the article then at my removal of it is even accusing me of vandalism.  Thanks! Russeasby 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have it properly listed on Third Opinion. I've seen this work in the past, but it looks like some responses can a while.  From the looks of it, this may be a case that requires a high degree of expertise, so it could take some time for a knowledgeable editor to come across this.  My guess is that you'll need to wait, but I'd expect a comment within 24 hours.  I'll head over there myself to see if I can offer any insight.  Hoof Hearted 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Anchor
Hi Russeasby,

I agree that editing an article that relates to a one's employer or product is a slippery slope that can lead to bias. But Wikipedia makes it clear that it is not forbidden as long as one maintains a neutral point of view. I'll admit, I focused on the neutrality of the chart and only checked (maybe) the last 5 edits by Badmonkey, which did not seem POV to me. Perhaps the stronger evidence of his bias is further back in his edit history. I also feel I'm neutral (the only boat I've ever anchored is my dad's 14' Sea Sprite ski boat) and looking at this article as an average reader. The difficulty comes in trying to separate the "design" aspect (which I think is worthwhile) from the "manufacturer" aspect (which I think we agree reduces to one-upmanship). I think you were wise to question data that was sourced from a company that manufactures anchors, but my (simplistic) comparison seemed to corroborate the claim that the scaling had no undue effects - at least for the vast majority of designs. You raise some excellent points about other independent studies and West Marine's lack scaling in their own results. And I'll back pedal a little bit to agree that a significant change for a single entry is enough to consider the entire chart "altered". I still maintain that if the ratioed data is a better (or at least valid) way to present the results, the Ronca chart is suitable for use. But now Hylas is saying surface area is the key factor and you're saying that could be anecdotal - so I don't know what to think. Whatever the case, if the chart goes, I don't think it's POV for the article to say The Rocna obtained the highest averaged holding power in SAIL magazine's comparison testing in 2006 with appropriate references. Hoof Hearted 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
Please see also:
 * request for Third opinion
 * section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * section on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

This unblock request posted by — Athænara   ✉  17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: For what its worth I did not even realize I could file an unblock request, nor did I realize I could still edit my user talk page. I thank Athaenara for filing this for me and for the assistance in offering help as a third party with my conflict with User:Badmonkey. I have no issues with being blocked per say, but I do have issue with the fact that I was blocked but Badmonkey was not, this is entirely unjust and goes to show the blocking admin did not fully research things before blocking. All that said, I dont mind if the block is not removed as it is only a 24 hour block, but i do hope the same block is imposed on the other offender as well. I wont have internet access likely for a few days in a couple hours, but I do have internet access again I do fully intend to follow up on COI and Spam being posted by Badmonkey, I know I am "fighting the good fight" to maintain standards of NPOV and Ecylopedic content on Wikipedia, unlike the single purpose editor on the other side of this conflict. Russeasby 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you why the blocking admin didn't block the other participant, but sometimes life simply isn't fair. The block message should mention about posting unblock requests i.e. The Appealing section of MediaWiki:Blockedtext. As above WP:3RR is about preventing the disruption of edit warring, wikipedia is not a battleground and there are very few exceptions to WP:3RR, being "right" is not one of them. --pgk 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Anchor article was protected from editing before the user was blocked. A user block was not necessary for the purpose stated in the unblock review.   — Æ.   ✉  19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar
Russeasby, I would like to extend my thanks for the barnstar (my first ever!) I have to admit, when I initially responded to your help template I expected the usual 10 minutes to investigate and explain some aspect of Wikipedia. I never expected to devote two days to learning about anchors and trying to mediate such a passionate debate! :-) Your acknowledgement is greatly appreciated, but I only feel that I was doing my part as a responsible Wikipedia editor.  Thanks again.  Hoof Hearted 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion:
Thanks for your comments Russeasby. I fully agree with you, 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 such as American boating magazine Practical Sailor.

• 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,

Thanking you beforehand.

Alain Poiraud Hylas 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to you on your post at Talk:Anchor, lets try to keep the discussion in one place. Russeasby 13:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

rfc for anchor
I think that the engineering subsection of the math, science, and technology page is the best fit, only because there is no better fit. CMummert · talk 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Bell page
Hi, I am not terribly interested in Bell or Scientology articles, but since I responded to the RFC reguarding the use of the TAS site, I have been watching this page. I think the content you removed in your last edit was inappropriate. That was properly referenced to a Scientology magazine, not to the TAS site. Its worth noting as well that the particular issue referenced is not even listed on the TAS site for Bell, so I do not see how you are associating the two to come to the conclusion you came too. I think your edit should be restored personally, or at the very least brought up for discussion on the talk page. Russeasby 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire; I tried and tried to talk about this on the talk page, and no-one will help me build language for the article. Go to the bottom of the section Talk:Catherine_Bell and you'll see where this came from.  In fact, I suggested more language, but since I got no feedback, I figured short is sweet.  The current publication was found by User:Tilman and he specifically said, on the talk page, that it did not include any date Catherine Bell joined Scientology.  The year 1990 came from the first course listed on TAS, and that was an advanced course anyway.  So we really don't know when Catherine Bell joined Scientology.   The only reason the 1990 date was attributed to Celebrity magazine was the edit war; Tilman added in Celebrity magazine, but kept TAS, other users deleted TAS, kept the Celebrity magazine article, and SOMEONE (I haven't checked whom) added the Celebrity magazine article twice.  Enuja 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You too should certify the user conduct RFC
Hello Russeasby! I put in my two cents worth at Requests for comment/Badmonkey. You should also add your own name in the section 'Users Certifying the Basis for this Dispute.' This section needs to contain at least two names or they won't accept the RFC. EdJohnston 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see your signature on the page anywhere. Shouldn't it be somewhere? EdJohnston 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of a well-documented proposal for a community ban
I guess we aren't seeking a ban at this point, but the following shows how far a patient editor can go when collecting evidence of misbehavior... It reminds me of the complaints about George III in the Declaration of Independence! EdJohnston 04:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well.. IT WORKS..
Thanks to both EdJohnston and Russeasby.. I have been able to change my signature.. In a few years, I will become an expert on WP..:0)    Alain POIRAUD 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

the MDS merge
Hello. I am somewhat unsure about how to hold discussion on the MDS America merge. I want there to be a clear consensus of non-MDSA affiliated editors before I go ahead with it, since I know the company guys will object vocally. I've set up a section for the debate at MVDDS dispute. I'd appreciate any help you could give, since it seems you also have experience in dealing with COI issues. Thanks, nadav 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the merger is basicly stalled, 2 comments from impartial editors and 2 from company employees. I feel it should be kick started somehow, any ideas? Perhaps a RFC should be opened on MDSA. Russeasby 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I've thought about this problem too. I do want a few more editors on our side, so I was hoping the proposed mergers listing would help. Obviously it hasn't. But is an RfC the right approach? Isn't that usually the first step in an arbitration or mediation process? Maybe we should add another listing to the WP:COI/N noticeboard. nadav 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

James Mac Guill
Thanks for the message, due to the lack of categories I wasn't aware that page existed. I'd have to do some research on him to see what source material is available, but on first glance there seems to be some potential. What I've done is moved the article to here as it doesn't make much sense to have it in mainspace in its current state, and I'll contact the person who prodded it before moving it back, assuming it can be improved of course. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 15:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Russeasby,

Sorry.... I'm really sorry if I sounded abrubt... If you were offering advice I'm very grateful. I did feel that I was being put under pressure and I'm only fairly new to Wikipedia. I've got much more to go on this article yet but I'm now very tired.... I was getting frustrated because my computer has crashed three times while I've been trying to edit the entries so I probably took out a lot of my frustration on you.... again I'm very sorry for that... it's something I shouldn't have done.... is there a way of taking the article off line or something until it is finished? (and I've added all the references etc).

Also.... perhaps you could advise me with radio references... obviously these aren't available on the internet etc... would dates and times be acceptable?

Endal (dog) / Endal

 * For some one claiming to be a seasoned sailor you do seem to change tack more than necessary. The latest edition to Endal is information on Endal's breed line. To have proof of a direct (unbroken) linage going back to the very first two Labradors that came to the UK shores is recognised in the dog world as making the dog very very notable. To have a tracable pedigree that follows the breed line down the middle is unique. I don't expect non dog people to understand that or recognise it's importance... but then again I doubt you would expect everyone to have in depth knowledge about sailing and it intricacies. Being a Royal Naval man of twenty years service ...I can say that from a knowledgable stance!

The additions of the  publications which feature articles about Endal, surly bolster his credibility further, these publication are written by others (so independent). The additions to newspaper links with references to Endal's awards substantiate the claims of his abilities. I am having trouble understanding what it is that you find has made the latest page uncomfortable for you? The article might not seem important to you personally but there are millions of dog owners out there that do have an interest in famous dogs.

The section of Endal's ability needs to be expanded, his ability to put his owner in to the recovery position, operate a cashpoint/ ATM machine, understand signing single endal out to be notable and unique

The advice to veterans of wikipedia is not to jump on newbie's, criticism most welcome but constructive criticism please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.35.159 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Firstly, please see WP:CIVIL. Secondly, I have not jumped on any newbies here, note that I have advocated keeping this article as notable. As for the links, see WP:EL and WP:NOT specificly note the guideline "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.".  The number of links in this article is way out of proportion considering the articles size.  The media articles used as references are of course appropriate, but ones not used as a source should be seriously trimmed down.  Likewise, the awards listed, notable awards which can be sourced should be listed, but unsourced unnotable awards in a list is not. Reguarding the dogs pedigree, if you can source it properly then it may be worth incuding. Russeasby 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Thank for your input and i have truly appreicated your support but after a very short time one can feel very bullied by some of the wikipedia guru(s) out there. It has made me more defensive than needed, so sorry for that. I am starting to see a clearer picture of where you are directing the page. Some of the source material references required are proving harder to find, but that is on going work. 84.66.35.159 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, its a common issue, so common that there is a wikipedia guideline reguarding it at WP:BITE. It happens, just as you suggest, even though each individual jumping in to offer advice may not individually think they are biting, as a whole the newbie can still end up feeling severly bitten. Editing at wikipedia can be overwhelming at first, there are so many policies and guidelines (which often can even contradict each other) on top of learning formatting and other things.  Just take things in stride and try discussing things with an open mind to those who may disagree with you.  Do not give up on continuing to improve the article, as you learn more about wikipedia you will gain confidence in what is and is not appropriate.  The pedigree of the dog for instance, if you can provide verifiable sources for the pedigree, then it may be worth adding and I certainly would not oppose it.  But I would suggest more as a breif note, Endals is not notable from a general world standpoint because of his liniage, he is notable for his abilities, in the article his abilities should overshadow liniage, not vica versa. Russeasby 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your latest. I can't raise any issue with what you have written and concur. I am a wee bit more wiser to the workings of WP, still baffled at times but amazed how quickly it can absorb one totally, the moments of anger are fro the pure frustration at not getting it right first time. Having been through the is Endal Notable..non notable arguement the pedigree was yet another supporting piece but like you said not the reason why he is famous. Safe sailing and thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.196.223 (talk • contribs)

Frustration
Maybe an RfC will be the right way forward after all. I don't know. nadav 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See my post on Talk:MDS America, I think an AFD at this point is the best clear and concise way to deal with this, we find once and for all if it is notable or not and stick with the result. Otherwise we may see this go on forever, MDSA employees will never agree to a merge and there are too few others involved in the current debate, AFD forces a wider discussion. In all honesty, I suspect an AFD would result in no consensus(thus keep), given the sources available, and I will stick by that result even if I disagree, but it puts an end to the endless discussions leading nowhere. Russeasby 04:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see the notability of MDS America, but reliable sources are minimal. Russ, can you estimate the minimum improvement you would want to see before you would support keeping the article? EdJohnston 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I just want to see more non trivial secondary sources. There seems to be no secondary sources where MDSA is the primary topic.  The most notable thing from the public eye about this company seems to be the MVDDS dispute which is why I do support a merge and redirect.  From the claims made by MDSA employees I would not be suprised if MDSA became a highly notable industry leader in coming years, I just dont see it right now.  That said there have been terrific improvements to the article recently and it is much less of spammy vanity article then it used to, so I have less issue with the article itsself in its current form, I simply just question notability.  But, its not a big deal either way and I personally suspect an AFD would result in a keep anyways, I just want to end the debate really. Russeasby 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your encouragement
You posted it in April — there's a forum for it now. — Athaenara ✉  07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ITN
Apologies, it was not intentional. I must have saved the prior version. --Stephen 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ground Provisions
All tags have been removed in reference to removal of CSD from pages. I am the one that posted them. Any questions please contact me on my talk page Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)