User talk:Raywood~enwiki

Your edits to Comparison of file verification software

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Comparison of file verification software do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. 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. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ray Woodcock

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ray. Per the message a couple of sections up, it was deleted because it had been tagged for a lack of notability and for conflict of interest. Basically, writing about yourself is discouraged. Hope this helps; nothing personal. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, though, how would such a page be less notable than a page about, say, Steven Smith? And what was the nature of the conflict of interest, beyond noting that I (and other Ray Woodcocks) exist? It was not "about" me! Raywood 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Raywood~enwiki. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Fairlie

Hi,

I noticed your edit to the article on the very interesting Mr Henry Fairlie. The story of his use of "the establishment" is oft said but poorly cited, do you know of any sources for it either way? Oh, and by the way, Welcome to Wikipedia! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking personal blogs

Hello Raywood, I've noticed that you are linking to your personal blog which isn't allowed per WP:ELNO #11. These links must be removed as they are inappropriate by our standards. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the rule. The blog post in question provides original research directly related to the content of the article. But I think you are right: the rule generally indicates that Wikipedia does not want its readers to have access to that sort of research, at least not if it comes from an ordinary person like me.

As I read the rule and its accompanying verbiage, apparently a link to the blog post could survive if I were to take additional time to interweave the link into the text as a reference. Wikipedia seems to accept long lists of references, but not long lists of external links, at the ends of articles. There may be some recherche reason for this preference. To the casual contributor, however, it could seem mildly absurd. The list of links is actually easier to read than the list of references.

I am not going to try to interweave the link to my research into the text of the article. There are two reasons. First, it would require additional time, and time is short right now. Writing up this response will more than use up the time that I intended to devote to this effort to contribute to Wikipedia. Someone else is welcome to do that.

Second, experience indicates that efforts to contribute to Wikipedia are not generally appreciated. That is, I could find that my attempt to interweave the link into the text as a reference would run afoul of yet another rule. No doubt Wikipedia's editors have mastered those rules. I have not, and I will not. If Wikipedia wants its readers to have access to my research, it can figure out its own way of achieving that. The editors seem especially positioned to provide that service.

I took a year and a half off before making this effort. There have probably been fifty times, maybe more, when I could have contributed something useful during that period. But I was pretty disgusted, last time I tried, after doing all that work, to see some Wikipedia editor delete it.

The situation, I think, is that Wikipedia has changed. I've been online since before its creation. It formerly sought knowledge. Now it seems to be actively deterring people from contributing information. My frustration has apparently been due to my failure to recognize this change.

I would not have thought this was the case. I thought Wikipedia was still eager to grow. But that is not the tenor of the materials that I have encountered during the process of reading the rule you have cited. For example, there was something to the effect that the person who wishes to add an external link faces a significant burden of defending it. In other words, Wikipedia mostly wants external links provided by people who have a marketing motivation. That's too bad, but I guess that's the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: Your current link addition appears to be an attempt to bypass the above warning by linking to a site that has copied the content from the blog. The source is still the blog - using a secondary site to reprint the content does not eliminate the problems mentioned above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look at the content, you will see that the calendar itself is also at that Scribd location, and is directly cited in the first paragraphs of the linked page. Putting people at the calendar without the notes will be puzzling. The existence of a blog post mirroring this content does not seem significant.

All of the problems with the blog remain with this entry. Using a mirror of the content does not eliminate the problem. The fact that an extra download exists does not eliminate that problem. The primary purpose of the link is the text, not the download. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record - I also do not support linking directly to the download. The links are simply not appropriate on Wikipedia per WP:COI, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Wikipedia find editors who know something about, and have an interest in, the actual subject matter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is old, but I wanted to respond to something important. You said:

"As I read the rule and its accompanying verbiage, apparently a link to the blog post could survive if I were to take additional time to interweave the link into the text as a reference. Wikipedia seems to accept long lists of references, but not long lists of external links, at the ends of articles"

That is not the case. WP:RS makes the blog posts just as inappropriate as references as they are for external links.

I also wanted to comment that you write very well, and your contributions can, without a doubt, benefit WP and be appreciated. You will, however, have a better experience if you find something to do here that won't involve bumping up against the rules.

As an engineer, I have a wide variety of experience and knowledge I could contribute to articles in various science fields, but rarely find it appropriate to do so, given the rules against WP:OR. I tend more toward finding WP:MOS, grammar, citation, etc. problems, and some template programming, with some help desk and other "meta-work" thrown in to create a satisfactory experience for myself here. I end up contributing to areas I never studied much, and expanding my own horizons in the process.

For example, there are a great many articles that suffer from poor English (particularly articles related to the Asian sub-continent, i.e. PK, IN, SL, BD) that can benefit from rewrites. Some are reasonably well put-together and sourced and just need language polish, while others are, honestly, a complete mess. You generally don't run into much conflict there unless changing the actual meaning in some hot-button subjects, like race and politics, Kashmir, etc.

Best of luck. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Julian calendar". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Julian calendar, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Lord Roem (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

where you've put the page that I spent hours researching

Dear Raywood,

Someone claiming to be you asked "... I don't have hours to devote to plumbing what appear to be its layers of bureaucracy. Could someone please tell me where you've put the page that I spent hours researching?"

In general, everything you've ever posted to Wikipedia while logged in as Raywood can be found under the "User Contributions" link in the column to the left of your user page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Raywood&limit=500 .

I occasionally forget to login before making a contribution, as do many other people. Such "IP address edits" can also be found from the "User Contributions" link from that IP address's user page. But since most people don't remember the IP address they happened to be using at the time of their contribution, but they do remember the name of the page they were editing, it's usually easier to find such edits by clicking the "history" tab at the top the particular page that was edited. (The Wikipedia software generally does not associate IP addresses with specific users, because there are many universities that use a NAT that makes every one of their hundreds of students appear to have the exact same IP address).

I'm making a wild guess that perhaps the information you are looking for is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_verification_software&diff=prev&oldid=147987160 ?

Does that help? --DavidCary (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Raywood. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Raywood~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

17:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)