Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.apricot.net/about.html. As a copyright violation, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

--Stifle 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regret I've described more of the real-world business and marketing use of the word peering in the Peering article. Not pure but it's the real world as it seems to be today. Cleanup that reflects the real-world uses, bastardised though they may be, is very much welcome. Jamesday 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goines HSC Poster 255x396.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sin, and it was a serious one, re YYCIX Internet Exchange Community Ltd was to create it by a copy&paste of Foamyslippers (talk · contribs) draft thereby making you appear to be the original author. You should have done it by moving the draft. Under the rules of ownership this is totally permissible. Situation now corrected. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page User:Bwoodcock has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Bwoodcock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I had deleted this, but he created it in 2006 and could be seen as grandfathered so I restored it. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have no idea what "grandfathered" means and a quick search on Wikipedia hasn't enlightened me! The user page has absolutely nothing to do with the user's edits on Wikipedia? Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia really where you look for definitions of words that you don't know? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/grandfathered That wasn't the purpose of user pages at the time the page was last edited. Why are you suddenly so fascinated with the content of my user page? It doesn't seem to have previously been of any interest to you. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you watch how you are acting. We all come from different parts of the world with different language backgrounds. Theroadislong, if something is grandfathered it means that newer rules do not apply to whatever is grandfathered. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in 14 years of editing I have never come across this term in relation to user pages. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, point taken, but this PvP crap is extraordinarily tedious. Can we please move back to the actual topic, the chicken-and-egg problem between the Emerald Onion article and the recursive resolver list? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong This does seem like an unusual case but I'm content to let the admin that sees your speedy delete tag to evaluate it. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Woodcock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Woodcock until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 19:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ETF Trucks D8-774.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: In oder to meet WP:NFCC#1, it is not sufficient that a free image cannot be found, it must also be the case that one cannot be created. For an existing vehicle, one could be created by taking a photo of the truck and releasing it under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq:Ok, sorry, I wasn't trying to be obtuse, I just have no idea how to go about solving that problem, in practical terms. It's not like these are commonplace trucks, that a random Wikipedian would have access to. And drawing a picture of one probably won't satisfy most people, who want to know that it's a real thing that exists in the world. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be simple for any random person to get a photo, but that is true for many things that we may want photos for. Commons has a large number of images of mining equipment so free photos of this class of equipment is possible. Although this image is being challenged on WP:NFCC#1, I don't see the need to have this image in order to understand the topic of trucks and WP:NFCC#8 does not seem to be met either in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the red links for cable laying ships for reasons given at Talk:Cable layer. While excessive red links in an article are distracting and worthy of a clean up note red linked ships have a purpose that is fairly commonly used. That is particularly true for ships likely to have notability (as sunk) or in the case of Long Lines (I have that one in development) a major impact on the technology of both cable laying and telecommunications. Those red links for the ships go blue when the article is created (why one finds red links in many ship lists) and makes it easier to use "What links here" to clean up other articles. The elimination of those "Class" templates is another matter. Some here are spurious and pure creations of editors, not any navy or shipping line. Those, even when valid, also clutter the "What links here" function making it nearly useless if for example "Ships built" in a year. Palmeira (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palmeira: That all seems reasonable. Anything I can do to help support the new article creation, to turn those links blue? Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sitting on Long Lines for months in large part because the operational history is long and significant. The ship was specifically designed to lay a new type cable system, not just "cable," to be used in the worldwide telephone system. I have that reasonably well covered. Selecting I do not think ship articles should drone on and on regarding every operational event, but this ship played a very significant role in the major communications developments into the era of fiber optic cable and what we have now. Hooper/Silvertown is another significant ship for its design and operations. The other three are of less interest to me, though the Gomos and La Plata "saga" is interesting. The fact they were sunk and if I recall appear in maritime loss lists here makes them potential subjects. The references in the article at those ships gives a start. I've collected a bit more, but not enough to do anything worth while on Gomos and La Plata. You might dig there and find something interesting. Right now I've diverted to four significant Grace Line ships, ones I've looked at since the last two were operating wishing I could travel aboard. I keep getting diverted from Long Lines. Palmeira (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eqvinox (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard result was "I don't believe (there is) a COI, as the connection is this case is too tenuous even without considering Bill's reply."

I'm guessing you found something through personal contact that is not citeable? If the info could be used to help in searching for public sources could be of value. There's a lot of stuff in old Usenet archives or mailing lists from those days that might be searchable. -- GreenC 03:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Yes, exactly. I can't share the communication publicly, but sharing it privately might give us a shared sense of how to move forward in looking for public sources. So, email me or get me on Signal or FaceTime if you want to discuss it. Thanks. Bill Woodcock (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Berkeley Macintosh Users Group members has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, MobiCast (mobile ad-hoc networking), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hatchens (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, MobiCast (cellular networking), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hatchens (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwoodcock. This is regarding MobiCast. Why don't you combine both the articles under one name and bifurcate the products inside the body of the article? Later, you can tag it by adding suitable categories. -Hatchens (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Because that's how it's been for the last fifteen years, and it was garbage then, just two unrelated flavors of garbage mixed together on one page for no reason other than that the CoI editors both felt they had a claim to the same name. We don't have a single article about two people both named Joe Smith just because they happen to share a name, we have disambiguation. And the fact that two people share the same name doesn't make the name notable when neither of the people is. I (and other editors) completely agree that both articles are garbage, but the combined article somehow survived an RfD without consensus in 2005, so the theory here was to split them into two articles, and then see if either of the split ones could survive an RfD. So, if you want to help with that, it would be much more helpful for you to propose RfDs on them than to move them into draft space. If someone felt they were worth improving, they likely would have stepped forward in the last decade and a half. So, unless you disagree with the above, please revert your change, and consider the RfDs instead. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Deep Blue (chess computer) and Talk:Freetown station on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Eurana (1915) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article MobiCast (cellular networking) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't believe this is sufficiently notable to warrant an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• MobiCast (mobile ad-hoc networking)

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am relatively new to GA reviews. However a few suggestions for your consideration:

1. In both Talk:Tom Cole (racing driver)/GA1 and Talk:Engineers' Club Building/GA1 you have not communicated a full review based on all of the criteria. I suggest using some of the templates - both to make it easier for you, but also clearly show to others where things stand.
2. Inconsistency of passing Tom Cole and not passing Engineers' Club Building. In my opinion, the Tom Cole review detail is not thorough enough.
3. To elaborate on the point above. You are being very challenging on the the Engineers' Club Building review, but have let a lot slide in passing Tom Cole. A non-exhaustive list of examples from a very quick review:
   1. The lead does not summarise the article.
   2. He contracted polio before reaching adulthood, leaving him largely immobile for several years - how many years? A major issue in his bio.
   3. It appears that Cole split his time between the US and the UK immediately after the war. In 1947, Cole took part in the Bugatti Owner's Club (B.O.C.) -- no reference. And "it appears" is an example of WP:WTW.
   4. very transatlantic buick - relevance?
   5. just a week before World War II began officially in Europe. - relevance?
   6. blew up is incredibly vague - the whole car? the engine?
   7. S1.95 race - no idea what this means.
   8. winning his class in both - unclear?
   9. MOS:LINKONCE
   10. WP:OVERCITE, e.g. for Cole lost control passing a slower car at Maison Blanche. The Ferrari hit a bank and demolished a wooden hut. Cole was ejected from the car and died instantly from his injuries.[1][12][66][67][68]

Not a bad article. But your approach doesn't seem consistent between these two reviews. I know we're all just trying to improve Wikipedia. This is just a suggestion of how to approach GA nominations for your consideration. Kind regards Mark83 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example. There are 5 references at the end, but it's unclear if all of the facts are referenced. On 13 June 1953, Cole started his fourth Le Mans in his 340 MM, this time co-driven by Luigi Chinetti. The race started well, with the car running as high as third during the first three hours, but it had fallen to sixth by the fourteenth hour as morning broke in fog. Cole began a charge, unusual for this phase of the race and for the conditions, and was catching the fifth-placed car of Peter Whitehead by 10 to 20 seconds per lap. At 6:14 a.m., Cole lost control passing a slower car at Maison Blanche. The Ferrari hit a bank and demolished a wooden hut. Cole was ejected from the car and died instantly from his injuries.[1][12][66][67][68] In-line citations should be after the text they are providing verifiability for. Mark83 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark83: thank you. This is all very helpful guidance. I'm gathering that GA reviewing is very different than editing for publication, and that there's much more focus on fact-checking, and less on readability, grammar and flow. Your specific suggestions help me understand how I can be paying closer attention, and I appreciate that. I'll see what I can do with these on the Tom Cole article, and I'll be curious to see your thoughts on the Engineers' Club Building. The structure of the Cole article, as a brief-but-detailed chronology of his racing career, kind of writes itself, or at any rate, doesn't require much interpretation or abstraction. The structure of the Engineers' Club Building, by contrast, is more problematic: It's a building, with architectural features; it has a context in the geography and culture of a city; it also has a professional and social context; and it has a chronology associated with both its uses and its physical adaptations to those uses, time and the elements, and the city it's a part of. It felt to me like Epicgenius was doing a pretty good job with the facts, but having a lot of trouble with the structure, and specifically having trouble shoe-horning this particular building into a structure that he said he'd applied uniformly to hundreds of other articles about buildings. Although that claim seems incredible, a quick look through his edit history shows that it may well not be an exaggeration. The failures of shoe-horning appear to me to evidence themselves in two ways, mainly: an incoherence of the overall structure of the article, which does not proceed in an easily-anticipatable way from one topic or era to the next; and duplications of minor facts or subjects across several different sections of the article. There is, of course, no way to capture that kind of issue in a formulaic checklist, but it's difficult for me to recognize something as "Good" if it's not also "good" at that level. I tried to be clear that I thought he'd done an excellent job of finding and presenting the facts, and that I thought thee remaining issues were pretty much exclusively limited to organization and deduplication. As I said, I'm very curious to see your more experienced take on it. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed that article yet, but on the general point of prose - the GA criteria state that prose should be "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; The Featured article criteria set a higher bar: prose should be "well-written... engaging and of a professional standard". I'll be honest that I haven't read the full talk page conversation word for word, but my impression is you might be asking for FA quality rather than what the GA crieria mandates. Nevertheless, I am not dismissive of your concerns on structure. Mark83 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my second opinion review of this GA nominee. I have left some comments/suggestions for improvement, however I feel it's very close to promotion. I've seen how quickly the nominator tends to respond, so I thought I would get out ahead of that and see how you want to approach this. If I am satisfied that all my queries/recommendations are resolved to the extent that I feel the article meets the GA criteria, are you happy for me to pass it? My understanding of the second opinion instructions is that I shouldn't pass it without checking with you. Mark83 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark83: Absolutely! Thank you very much for taking it over, and please feel free to conclude it as you see fit. I haven't yet had time to do much clean-up on the Tom Cole (racing driver) article, in part because I was applying your suggestions here: Talk:Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)#GA_Review. Ideally I could have gotten through that in a somewhat less activist way, but I'm not displeased with the result. Cleaned up a bunch of factual discrepancies by going back to original materials to disambiguate. So, thank you very much for the guidance, I really appreciate it. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Periodic table on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Eurana (1915) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Eurana (1915) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mississippi Highway 496 on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you could make an SVG of this image: File:Jeff's_gourmet_logo.png. Thanks! JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 05:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm capable of doing so, but it's a bit of work, particularly if I have to play sleuth with the typefaces... The bottom one might be Aachen, which I have, but the top one is some goofy copperplate, which I'd have to go looking for. Why is it needed, and do they not have an SVG on their web site? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have an SVG on their website, to my knowledge. It's not a big deal if it'd be too much work, was just wondering. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JediMasterMacaroni: If you look at the logos on this page, they're all ones that I had to turn into SVGs, but the easy way to do that is to go looking for an online PDF version of some document (like an annual shareholder report, for instance) that includes a clean vector copy of their logo, and rip it out of there. There are also several web sites that archive vector copies of logos... https://seeklogo.com and https://brandsoftheworld and a few others. I doubt Jeff's Gourmet is big enough to be on any of those sites, but in general, they're a good resource. Re-drawing from scratch is kind of a last resort, and is easiest on fairly simple logos. Bill Woodcock (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 18:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kerne Bridge (River Wye crossing) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwoodcock! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Single citation, multiple quotations?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Emperor and Talk:SS Chester A. Congdon on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lambert Automobile Company on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Waycross Air Line Railroad on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bwoodcock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Telecommunications in the Caribbean, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pytest on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conestoga Parkway and Talk:Washington State Route 292 on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bwoodcock. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cristine Hoepers, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tuas Link MRT station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gilman Square station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:KiHa 80 series on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fitchburg Cutoff on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bwoodcock. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Blablubbs (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email; thank you for reaching out. I'm willing to have that conversation, but I would prefer to have it on-wiki for transparency reasons. Is it acceptable to you if I respond here? --Blablubbs (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Blablubbs. For the record, the email in question was:

Hi. I'd have replied at Sockpuppet investigations/Bwoodcock, but our company's IP is now autoblocked.

As a user of Wikipedia, one can try to discover its societal norms by reading up on them (which isn't typically how users begin their entry into the experience, particularly not in 2006) or one can discover them experientially. When one first discovers them experientially and then, annoyed by all the brigading and sockpuppetry and so forth, subsequently reads the declared norms, one finds a radical and particularly dispiriting dissonance between them. The people who most aggressively brigade and sock-puppet and camp out on articles reverting anything that's not complementary to their employer are also invariably the first to self-righteously invoke and weaponize Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules. A year ago, I gave up, and did what I saw so many of the more-active editors doing, and began using multiple accounts. (My staff were, at the same time, pushing me to move away from using my old well-known social-media accounts for anything that wasn't cleared through legal first, and that also contributed to my decision.) I fully recognize that that was in direct contravention of the letter and the spirit of the stated norms. And I fully agree with the principle of the stated norms, and very much wish that we lived in a world that was actually governed by them. This is, ironically, the first enforcement of the norms that I've actually witnessed, albeit observer bias undoubtedly hides the successful enforcements.

So, anyway, if your intention is that I never darken Wikipedia's door again, so be it. If your intention is to begin a dialog and right a wrong, I'm here and interested to hear your thoughts.

- Bill Woodcock

On the contrary, as I said, this was the first instance of sockpuppetry enforcement I actually witnessed, so it's heartening to see that there is, in fact, some discipline being exercised. That leaves open the question of the degree to which enforcement is selective, but it's more reassuring than none at all.

So, a couple of thoughts here. First of all, I'm not sure there's any reasonable position for you to take other than the one you're taking. So I don't argue that you should view it in a different way, nor take different action. As an individual actor within a system, you do what you can; that includes acting within the system, or changing the system, or attempting to change the system incrementally by acting within it. Which latter course appears to be your chosen one. And that's reasonable. That said, I'm not sure your rationale is valid, and the reason has to do with pseudonymity. The more I've thought about this, the more I find myself driven to the conclusion that a large part of the dissonance I feel is driven by the changes inherent in the shift of societal norm to pseudonymity. Since that was not the norm at the time I created my account, and I abided by the norms of the day, my account has always been unambiguously tied to my identity. As a relatively public person, that's had unforeseen, perhaps unforeseeable, consequences as societal norms on Wikipedia, as too many other fora, have turned to pseudonymity, and the forms of bad-faith discourse pseudonymity enables. But what matters about that, in the big-picture policy sense, is that the combination of Wikipedia's indelible history, its original societal norms of attribution (and subject-matter expertise, attempt to be an encyclopedia, etc.), and its US incorporation, where EU right-to-be-forgotten laws do not apply, leads to a structural divide: early accounts are and forever will be tied to known people, while recent accounts may be entirely pseudonymous. My mistakes are there for everyone to see, forever. Yours (the class of people who created their accounts after the shift to pseudonymity, not picking on you specifically) may be discarded and replaced without cost, as many times as you like, in an iterative learning experience. And we all, every one of us, learn by making mistakes. As the normative ground has shifted, I have experimented in an attempt to discern the lay of that new ground. I forestall any response of "but the policy is stated clearly" as aspirational but not functional. In an opaque environment, as any in which stated norms and observed norms are so clearly at odds must be viewed, one staggers about, bumping into walls to discover their existence and position. So this is an example of not selective enforcement, but a selective penalty. And this is why I believe your premise is wrong. While the penalty for experimentation by holders of early accounts is high, the penalty for pseudonymous users is essentially nonexistent. So it's not clear to me that your premise is applicable to pseudonymous users, who are now the vast majority of Wikipedians.

An example of this dissonance in policy, and a consequent discrepancy in consequences for named versus pseudonymous users, is the difference between Wikipedia's oft-repeated injunctions against deanonymization , and the much-less-widely-touted privacy policy. Which, since it's in US jurisdiction, is voluntary rather than binding anyway. While I think an argument for the deanonymization of my other accounts would be difficult to justify on WP:CUPRIVACY point 4 sub 2 purpose grounds, or point 4 sub 3 necessity grounds, you and RoySmith (whose similar tenure and named account illustrate my point about changing norms) clearly acted within the bounds of the law in publicly tying them to my name, photograph, email address, place of residence, et cetera. And I'm sure there's a certain thrill of discovery, in unmasking the true identity of someone who's violated the norms you're enforcing. However, I ask you to consider this question: Would you have published those pieces of personally identifying information of a pseudonymous user, without warning, on a first offense? If the answer to that question is "no," then there is, indeed, a discrepancy in penalties, and your rationale does not apply equally to all.

Notwithstanding the foregoing about the process of discovering actual versus aspirational norms in an opaque environment, it's also worth considering that the reason these CoI policies have become necessary is as a consequence of pseudonymity. They didn't exist before because they weren't necessary before, because actors were public. If you were saying something, you were saying something because you had reason to say it. CoI rules are a countermeasure for the subterfuge that accompanies norms of pseudonymity. But we are where we are, I'm not under the illusion that a "true names" norm will ever return to Wikipedia. It would be too detrimental to those who've benefitted from pseudonymity, and I think those people, while probably not more numerous than those who derive no specific benefit from it, are certainly more active and better compensated. In case it's not obvious, I do not count myself among those who benefit from pseudonymity, and did not a month ago, either... I believe it's a scourge and has probably damaged Wikipedia irretrievably.

Of course. If you feel that I am, at any point, attempting to justify or rationalize, rather than understand or communicate, please call it to my attention, and I will reflect upon what I've said. I do not view the ground upon which I stand in moral terms, I try to understand it, and I do that through discourse. Rationalization is feckless and intellectually self-defeating.

If you believe I should be examining the situation in moral terms, I'll note that that's a high bar to set for such muddy surroundings, but I'm also willing to try to have that conversation, though I'm not wildly optimistic about the applicability of its outcome under the circumstances, pseudonymity, sock-puppetry, et cetera, being the lay of the land.

If you see any reason to doubt that, please call it to my attention; though my primary contributions have been infrastructural and policy, rather than in-wiki content. It does, though, raise the question of the changing definition of "success," and I suppose I would argue that the shift away from an encyclopediac goal via an Orwellian redefinition of "notability" is a pivot which is not for the better. The shift from the lofty goal of being a free and open repository of the sum of human knowledge, to being a list of things that have been said in People Magazine, is perhaps not the best yardstick for measuring success. Perhaps that's overstating things a bit, but the combination of deletionism and the abolition of primary sources has not been good by the measures that were in force when I began editing. So, if the predominantly accepted notion of "success" goes too far in the direction of 4Chan, then, yes, I would stop caring about Wikipedia. Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement here was doing the forensic analysis which showed that the four accounts which were blocked were almost certainly run by the same person. My suggestion is two-fold. First, declare here every account that you have ever used. Second, read WP:Standard offer for guidance on how you might get your block lifted. We're not social media, and we're not a vanity press. We're an encyclopedia, and from that basic premise flow all the rest of our rules and policies. You have published in peer-reviewed journals. Imagine what response the editor of CACM would have if they discovered that one of the people who reviewed your submission was actually you, using a false name. I don't think any of "But other people do it", "I didn't know it was not allowed", or, "My staff encouraged me to do it" would get you very far. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, though not here. Consult Blablubbs.

I'd rather not get ahead of myself. I think my highest goal at the moment, with respect to Wikipedia, is figuring out where the norms actually lie, and we're still having a productive conversation in that regard.

Inapt analogy. Imagine what the world's response would be if it was discovered that an anonymous party had taken over editorship of CACM and was discarding authors' peer-reviewed articles and replacing them with his own, as a power-play, because he found it more amusing than playing World of Warcraft. That's how we got here. When that kind of behavior is tolerated, yes, things go down-hill very quickly. Yes, I recognize that I could have just given up and written off Wikipedia's encyclopedic goal, and we wouldn't be here right now. Understanding what the best course of action would have been, under the actual circumstances, rather than aspirational ones, is my goal at this point. Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement was flagging the months-long deception. When I did so, I looked into this user name but didn't tag it. I figured you'd been here long enough and your edits seemed well intentioned enough that you wouldn't engage in this type of thing. I'm sorry to learn I was wrong I agree with RoySmith and would go a step further. What is missing from your missives above is any sense of aaccountability or any apology. You deceived lots of people, for a long time. That's not the fault of Wikipedia, or your staff, or your lawyers, or bureaucracy, or admins, or other spammers, or me. My suggestion is that if you don't like the "disinformation age," then you shouldn't engage in deceptive conduct online anymore. Lies beget lies. If you're ready to contribute honestly, standard offer applies. agtx 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that something is missing, please guide the conversation in that direction more explicitly. But perhaps give what I've written a closer reading before dismissing it. Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on the pseudo-academic dialectic, thanks. This is not a Great Moral Question for our age. You came on here and pretended to be different people having conversations with yourself, including on an account that you say uses your real name (I have no way to know if that's true, nor do I care). You plainly did so with the intent to deceive other people. Upon getting caught, you had a lot to say, none of which was "I won't do this again." I'd advise reviewing both WP:IDHT and WP:STANDARDOFFER. If you can't see how those apply to you, then this probably isn't the place for you. agtx 21:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William Buchanan (locomotive designer) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Severfield on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Carolina Highway 124 on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Computer program on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Double group on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Poole on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Poole on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:59th Street–Columbus Circle station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New Haven and Derby Railroad on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bwoodcock. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Telecommunications in the Caribbean".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bwoodcock. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cristine Hoepers".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]