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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 someone 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 would seem to be especially positioned to provide that service.

I took a year and a half off before making this effort. See Wikipedia, Please Control Your Bureaucracy. 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, only to see some busybody overrule it.

What seems to have happened is that Wikipedia has changed. I've been online since before its creation. It formerly sought knowledge. Now it is apparently trying to keep its head above water. That is, Wikipedia now seems to be actively seeking to deter 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. Surely Wikipedia is growing, and is eager to grow more. But that is not the tenor of the verbiage 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. I think I speak for many people when I say, screw that. If Wikipedia wants to showcase links provided by marketers who have the time and motivation to meet that kind of requirement, it's ultimately not my problem.