This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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, 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)

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)

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)

Hi. Could you review your inclusion of [[Image:HMS Cornwall.jpg]] on HMS Cornwall (F99) and Royal Navy? As far as I can see the ship can be reasonably represented by [[Image:HMS Cornwall F99 July 2006.jpg]] which suggests that we probably should not be using it (see Wikipedia: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)

Hi! 124.197.25.9 14:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article anchor, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman ( ^talk/ _contrib) 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page anchor do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jehochman ( ^talk/ _contrib) 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"il lutte une campagne contre quelques concurrents particuliers."

n'est pas français.. la bonne syntaxe serait: "il mêne une campagne contre.. "

Dés que la décision finale sera effective sur la page Anglaise Anchor, je propose d’appliquer les mêmes décisions sur la page Ancre en Français.

Tout commentaire favorable ou défavorable est le bienvenu. Hylas 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cet article provoque une controverse de neutralité. Considérez-le avec précaution.

Hylas 03:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Embedding your response inside someone elses comments, and cutting their comments up is not only inappropriate but it also makes the section difficult to read. Please use the accepted forms of responding. Please reformat your response. Russeasby 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Image talk:Anchor holding power graph.jpg, you will be blocked from editing. Russeasby 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A RFC has been opened reguarding your behavior as an editor. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey and note the appropriate section for you to add your response(s). Russeasby 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Badmonkey. We seem to be entering a period of negotiation as regards your editing on Wikipedia. If you continue to revel in your complete anonymity, it's possible that you may be limiting your ability to upload photos that are copyrighted by Rocna. (e.g. This image is copyrighted; however, the copyright holder Rocna Anchors allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed.)

If you are not affiliated with them, can you please name the person at Rocna who released the photo rights to you. Thanks, EdJohnston 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fleet Review Trafalgar 200.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Konstable 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Goodbye, I agree that the information is interesting, and the references may be valid, but a disambiguation page is not the place for them. It's not a dictionary entry. That information belongs in Wiktionary or in a separate Wikipedia article. Perhaps that article (on the model of Hello—Care to write it?) should be at Goodbye and the current dab info moved to Goodbye (disambiguation). -- ShelfSkewed Talk 11:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Anchor‎. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] -- Ronz 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See [2] -- Ronz 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wacom logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rocna-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Garhauer (2nd). I have been accused of sockpuppetry and need some help please. I initially made an error in both using a user name that was the same as our product and submitting an article that looked like a promotion of our product. I had seen the Rocna anchor piece and without doing enough homework, assumed I could do the same. I took notice of the warnings and accepted that this was not the correct way of doing things. I understood that if I changed the user name to a more neutral one, this would solve the problem. Perhaps you could tell me what I should have done.

I also seek your advice as to how to deal with negative comments continually being added to the article on anchor weights. After more reading, it appears I can ask for some evidence that the comments are not biased. -- Rewih ( talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided that your allegation of sockpuppetry is probably correct, but Rewih will be given a second chance because all the other accounts are blocked. See User talk:Rewih. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)