User talk:Russeasby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Russeasby! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Smee 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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))


[edit] Removal of Content from Anchor

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Unblock request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "1. I am not (see below) the user who was blocked.
2. A dispute came to my attention via a request for a Third opinion.
3. The block was imposed after a report by another 3RR violator.
4. No procedural notification of the block was placed here on the user's talk page."

Decline reason: "1. The blocked user should place their own unblock request.
2. Ok
3. Doesn't excuse edit warring, two wrongs don't make a right
4. wikipedia is not a bureacracy the block isn't invalidated because you think it was implemented incorrectly,
WP:3RR is intended to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring, that is exactly what appears to have been happening here. If the editor is willing to agree to stop edit warring and not restart, the block can probably be lifted. --pgk 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Please see also:

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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/s/User_talk%7ERusseasby_4805.html"