Talk:Dowelmax

Spam label

This is not spam. This is a unique and useful tool that I use and that deserves a mention in Wikipedia. I am not affiliated with the makers of this tool. ► RATEL ◄ 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the comment that the tool is very accurate it appears non-notable and in the form of advertising.Rob Banzai (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a chance! Sheez! This is a unique tool that had had rave reviews from many reviewers in the woodworking world. There is nothing "non-notable" about it, at least not to people making furniture.► RATEL ◄ 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not interpret my CSD as a personal attack. It's not personal. If this piece of equipment is notable it just needs to be cleaned of the promotional tone and have references other than from the manufacturer. No need for me to "back off." Rob Banzai (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to back off because you gave me less than 5 mins after the article was created to tag it for deletion! I know you're keen, but that's overboard. Now I've altered the text to make it as non-promotional as I can, and I think it is a fair assessment as it stands. ► RATEL ◄ 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel that this article reads like an ad. I don't think you can use some of the hyperbole you have used without being challenged on it. I agree that we should keep the article, as it is no doubt an innovative woodworking tool, although I have not used one. But I think we need to keep the tone down a bit. If people want to see the test results, they can go to the references you have provided. I don't think it's in the tone of Wikipedia to be trying to convince people of the superiority of one manufacturer's product over another. SilentC (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the removal of the results of an independent test by one of the world's largest woodworking periodicals (and not just because it took me 30 mins to build that table). I also fail to see how it reads like an advert, especially after your edits, SilentC. ► RATEL ◄ 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this tool is patented, so when I said it does this or that "uniquely", I was speaking legalistically. That too should not have been removed. Please discuss your edits in future. ► RATEL ◄ 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "read" past tense because I wrote the comment after my changes. I removed the test results because, as I said, I don't think it's in the tone of Wikipedia to be trying to convince people of the superiority of one manufacturer's product over another. It's not a slight on the magazine, although you could debate about advertising-related bias and so on, that's not the issue. I'm pretty sure that it would be considered contrary to the style of Wikipedia to include them. If people want to read them, they can follow your references. SilentC (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the results of the test support M&T joints over the Dowelmax, so one cannot conclude that the test results are there to "to convince people of the superiority of one manufacturer's product over another" as you put it. Granted, the test does show that Dowelmax joints are stronger than Domino joints, but this dovetails with other tests by other people who found the same results (I can supply a link if you like). So it's an accurate reflection of comparatve joint strength, and of vital interest to woodworkers. I'd like you please to show why it is inadmissable to include independent test results in WP. Do you have any reference for this, or is it simply a personal preference of yours? ► RATEL ◄ 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One part of the description that sounds a bit like overstating the utility of the tool is "can drill five holes at a time." I think "can drill five holes between setups" would be more accurate.

I'd be interested in an explanation of the Hydraulic Test. Ken McCracken

Independent tests of joint strength

I'm afraid that the very first page I looked up in reference to the admissibility of independent tests that compare products, the Toyota Prius page, contains exactly such comparative tests, so I suggest you go hunt down an applicable WP policy before changing the page again based on a whim. And if you do revert me, quote the exact policy, and please also delete the section on the Toyota page. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that the manufacturer's tests place Dowelmax above traditional M&T. So there is conflict between them. If you feel strongly about the table, put it back, I wont revert. I think it would be better to include a discussion of the test results though, as per your Prius example, rather than just dumping in the table. SilentC (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to enhance the page by discussing the conflict in the results. ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you should stop taking it so personally, it's bad for your health. SilentC (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]