User talk:Hughlockhart

May 2020
Hello, I'm TheImaCow. I noticed that in this edit to The Way of St Andrews, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheImaCow (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm LuK3. An edit that you recently made to The Way of St Andrews seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Hughlockhart. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page The Way of St Andrews, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Garth, thank you for your help and advice. I have endeavoured, following your recommended steps, to do the following - update my username and declare a conflict of interest - get the ball rolling on a request edit by asking if anyone is interested. This should have got published on the talk page. Perhaps you could advise me if it is a case of 2so far so good" and that the next step is simply to put the revised text et cetera in another Request Edit. I presume the RE should be in HTML with all the references included. Perhaps you could kindly let me know if this is correct. Thanks Hughlockhart (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Your addition to The Way of St Andrews has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at The Way of St Andrews. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Further to the above - just to clarify exactly what I'm saying to you - do not ask editors to contact you via e-mail about their edits. The article has a talk page - use that to discuss the content with other editors. The e-mail address you gave in your edit summaries implies a connection with this subject, so you really need to read the COI (and possibly WP:PAID) guidelines before making any further edits at that page. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - just a bit more about this. Having done some work on the article today, I have read a number of sources about it and, assuming that your username is your real name, I now understand who you are and what your connection with the subject is. I'm sorry to belabour the point, but I want to be very clear about this: you should not be editing this article. Articles are written and maintained by volunteers who have no direct connection to the subjects of the articles - they are not owned by the subjects, nor an extension of the subjects' web presence.
 * Your recent editing, your edit summaries, and your recent posts on 's talk page all indicate to me that you don't really understand how things work here. That's OK - I appreciate that it can be confusing for inexperienced users - but please allow experienced editors such as myself and Diannaa to guide you. Drop me a note on my talk page (or ping me from here by typing and signing your post) if you would like to discuss the implications of editing with a conflict of interest. (As a piece of trivia - I'm a graduate of St Andrews Uni, and have very fond memories of the place. I have no wish to do down the endeavour you are promoting, but Wikipedia has standards that I am duty-bound to maintain.) Cheers  Girth Summit  (blether)  18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Girth. First, I would like to thank you for taking the time and the civility to explain what you are doing and endeavour to understand my position. I find it utterly remarkable that other editors seem to regard it as a natural right to alter without any consultation. An editor called Danaa claims she is not “obligated” but that is really a very weak excuse from someone who purports to be working for the good of the community. And I was interested to see that you are a former student at St Andrews so have some first hand knowledge of St Andrew and St Andrews. I do understand this concern about conflict of interest. The Wikipedia entry was originally set up at the behest of a student at Edinburgh University - she wanted the experience - who was already doing some work for me. So essentially what she wrote was as a result of a briefing from me. Was there a conflict of interest, because she was briefed by someone who knew the background? Or is it really preferable to have a totally detached editor and a contribution possibly riddled with mistakes? The student also gave me my first taste of the approaches of volunteer editors. There were those who did petty editing, like changing the odd word; those who completely altered sentences without giving any rational explanation; and there were, very few, who actually contributed constructively. But there was one editor whose interest became rather sinister and eventually I told the student to cut off all communication with him and let the Wikipedia entry stand as it was. But that experience did lead me to be suspicious of the motives, authority, and calibre of volunteer editors. So the Wikipedia entry has stood largely the same for about seven years. All the issues over copyright were resolved seven years ago. All I was doing was some simple updating of the number of routes, and a bit of rephrasing. So I was very surprised to receive this avalanche of interest and swagger with the red pen. Danaa is of course the editor who seems to pay most interest; she has removed two important sections of the story claiming a lack of references which I think some other must have removed and done some very inconsistent editing of the list of routes. I know from Wikipedia guidelines that ”stubborn and disruptive editing” is not classed as vandalism but…. Frankly, I am baffled as to how to proceed. I am mindful to simply restore, leaving out links et cetera, the sections removed by Danaa. Your advice very welcome. I appreciate and assume that most Wikipedia editors are acting altruistically. If you were inclined to constructively engage I would be delighted to send you my original text and references and you could advise on the necessary modifications. (Hughlockhart (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)).
 * , hi - sorry I didn't respond sooner, I hadn't noticed that you had responded. For future reference, you can notify other editors when you want them to see that you have replied to something - this is documented at PING, but basically you need to type . You can see that I have done that in this message; if you wanted to ping me, you would type  . Note that the spelling and capitalisation have to be correct, and you need to remember to sign your post, using ~ for the ping to be issued.
 * Anyway, back to the substance of the matter. Please let me start by assuring you that Diannaa is one of our hardest-working administrators, who has a better understanding of copyright, both in terms of the law and of our policies, than anyone else I know. She removed the content on the grounds that there was a copyright issue, not because it wasn't referenced - if she does that, the best response is always something along the lines 'I'm awfully sorry, would you mind explaining that to me?'
 * You don't need to send me the text in question - I'm also an administrator, I have access to view the deleted versions of the page. If there is a particular bit you want to ask about, go ahead and I'll try to explain.
 * To address your question is it really preferable to have a totally detached editor and a contribution possibly riddled with mistakes?, I'm afraid the answer is 'Yes, that is preferred.' Let me explain why: Wikipedia is based on the concept of verifiability - nothing should be in an article that cannot be verified, usually by reference to a reliable secondary source. It is not OK to write what you simply know to be true (this is the internet, there are a lot of people with very strange ideas about what is true!), so we only write what we can demonstrate. That being the case, if the sources are mistaken, so must we be, and if the sources are missing information, our articles will inevitably have corresponding gaps in them. Such is the nature of compiling an encyclopedia, rather than, say, a piece of investigative journalism, or a regular website about a subject.
 * This then leads me on to the next point - the conflict of interest. It is very difficult to write dispassionately and neutrally about something that you are directly connected with. I myself work for a notable institution which has an article about it; my partner, an academic, is herself notable, and there is an article about her. I do not edit either of these articles, even though I know a great deal of information about both which is missing from our articles, because of my conflicting interests with those subjects. If I wanted to make a change to those articles, I would have to declare my COI, and request that edits be made by somebody else, using an edit request template on the relevant article talk page. The Way of St Andrews has its own website - that's the place to write whatever you want about the subject. The Wikipedia article about the subject is a different thing altogether. I'll try to be very clear, then, about what you should do next:
 * Do not make any further changes to the article.
 * Declare your conflict of interest on your userpage. That's a red link at the moment, because you haven't created a userpage yet, but if you click on it, add some content, and click 'Publish changes', your userpage will be published. You can declare your interest with an explanatory statement, or you can make use of the template described at COI. I'd be happy to do that for you, if you like.
 * For any further changes you want to see implemented on the article, use an edit request. An uninvolved editor will review your request, and any sources you have suggested be used to support the changes, and if they are compliant with our editing guidelines, they will make the change. Note that when giving a reference such as a book, you should give specific page numbers, and the text in the book should directly support the specific assertion you are making. See OR, and especially SYNTH for relevant discussion of this.
 * I hope that is a clear, if rather lengthy, explanation of what has been happening here. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  11:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes and Updates to Way of St Andrews
The Way of St Andrews (Spanish: El Camino de Saint Andrews, French: Chemin de Saint-Andrews, German: der Weg von Saint Andrews, Italian: il cammino di Saint Andrews) is the revived (as of 2012) Christian pilgrimage route that leads to St Andrews Cathedral in Fife, on the east coast of Scotland, UK, where the relics of the apostle, Saint Andrew, were once kept. The pilgrimage to St Andrews has much in common with the famous pilgrimage, Camino de Santiagoto the great cathedral city of Santiago de Compostela in North West Spain, which annually draws over 300,000 pilgrims from all over the world. Both pilgrimages are dedicated to apostles (St James and St Andrew), both the saints were adopted as patron saints after miraculous intervention in crucial battles, and both Santiago and St Andrews are in remote areas.

How the Relics of St Andrew Came to Scotland How relics of St Andrew came to Scotland is the subject of many stories. One relates how relics of St Andrew were smuggled out of Patras in 357 AD by St. Rule, an enterprising monk, to escape confiscation by the Emperor Constantine who was gathering holy relics for his new city, Constantinople. Rule escaped to Scotland where he founded a Christian settlement on the east coast. Another story relates that relics came from the collection of Acca, Bishop of Hexham, around 732 AD. There are many other twists and turns but, over time, relics arrived and the settlement was renamed St Andrews. Eventually a great cathedral complex was built, dominated by St Rule’s Tower in homage to the brave Greek monk.

How the Relics of St Andrew Came to Scotland
How relics of St Andrew came to Scotland is the subject of many stories. One relates how relics of St Andrew were smuggled out of Patras in 357 AD by St. Rule, an enterprising monk, to escape confiscation by the Emperor Constantine who was gathering holy relics for his new city, Constantinople. &lt;ref&gt; V. Burch (1927), Myth and Constantine the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press)&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt; A Kee ((1982), Constantine Versus Christ (London: SCM)&lt;/ref&gt; Rule escaped to Scotland where he founded a Christian settlement on the east coast. Another story relates that relics came from the collection of Acca, Bishop of Hexham, around 732 AD. &lt;ref&gt; E. Gilbert (1974), St Wilfrid&rsquo;s Church at Hexham In Kirby. St Wilfrid at Hexham (Newcastle: Oriel press) &lt;/ref&gt;  There are many other twists and turns but, over time, relics arrived and the settlement was renamed St Andrews.  &lt;ref&gt;D. McRoberts (1976), The Glorious House of St Andrew in the Mediaeval Church of St Andrews (Glasgow: Burns)&lt;/ref&gt;  Eventually a great cathedral complex was built, dominated by St Rule&rsquo;s Tower in homage to the brave Greek monk. &lt;ref name="name"&gt; Michael TRB Turnbull&lt;/ref&gt;

Encyclopedic tone
Hi - I just dropped in to see whether you'd responded, and have taken a look at the proposed text above. I've got a few issues with it, which I'll touch on briefly - happy to expand if there's anything you don't understand. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  19:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tone This is the big one - this isn't written in an encyclopedic manner, it reads more like a guide book. Phrases like 'The pilgrimage to St Andrews has much in common with the famous...' aren't how we write - it's vague. What do they have in common? Who has compared them? We would write that more along the lines of 'The pilgrimage to St Andrews was compared to the Camino de Santiagoto by the historian Jeff Bridges, who noted that they are both.....' - do you see the difference? We're aiming for precise, accurate and informative writing, not something which is intended to impress the reader. Similarly, we don't use qualifiers such as 'brave' ('the brave Greek monk') - it's a subjective term. The stuff about the relics' arrival at St A's is also vague - competing mythologies, 'twists and turns' - what we want is the most recent academic opinion on the matter.
 * Wikipedia's voice We cannot say that there was a miraculous intervention in Wikipedia's voice - that implies that we are saying that a miracle actually occurred. What you could do is word that along the lines of 'both saints were adopted after military victories which were ascribed to miraculous interventions at the time', providing a specific source to support that specific assertion.
 * Sourcing The sourcing isn't great - it's fairly heavy on old books, entirely devoid of page numbers, and there is nothing written in the last 30 years. Surely there are some mediaeval historians who have written about St A's in that time?