User talk:Ray Oaks

Hello Ray, thanks for your contributions, I was drawn to your article on this medieval hospital partly due to the connection to one "Jonathan Oldenbuck". I made some corrections to the article including checking spelling, and added some references, but this edit you made subsequently has reverted all the changes I made. I'm not sure if this was intentional, as you have restored a number of spelling mistakes (such as "Walter Scott'sd" and "Jonathan Oldanbuck" - I'm trying not to take this personally of course). I'm happy to help with the article but clearly its disheartening to see contributions get blootered, though you may simply not have noticed. Have a look at these edits I made: , , , and if you think any of my additions are worth keeping, you can return them to the current version. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

APOLOGIES if I am cutting across your corrections. Please accept my apologies. I have not paid attention to the spelling etc as I have created the entry and need to do so for the "final" version.

Now I have updated the dates etc for the hospital I can leave the content. If you are still willing to make editorial changes around spelling etc - please do so. Just let me know this isOK - otherwise I will need to do a final revision. Many thanks for your help Ray Oaks (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Spellchecking complete. Minor edits - new image of Ochiltree. Ray Oaks (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and appreciate the apology, these things happen... Now, the first thing I noticed was "The first record of the hospital is recorded in 1352 during the time that Bernard (1324-c1328) was Abbot." Then the footnote mentions 1325. 1325 would be within Bernard's dates, so I have assumed this is correct, but I am afraid I have no idea what "Reg. Nig. Fol. 59/ Regal.fol. 99." means, so I cant follow this up. I suspect many other Wikipedia users are as ignorant as me in this regard: I got even more lost in the rest of this footnote. There are very useful citation templates which you can use to format references in a more legible way. While we are on the subject of sources, "Derek Hall, c2002." doesn't really help me either... And, Jervise's account is in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland not Archivists. All the old Proceedings are available online, as is Miller and the "Unto Yone Hospitall" paper, so I've added in links. Lastly, the section on the function of the hospital is unsourced - if this is your own speculation please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on original research. I know it sounds like nitpicking as you are clearly something of an expert on the subject, but "verifiability" is one of Wikipedia's central aims. Again, let me know if I can be of any further help. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You have made many helpful edits too many to comment on. I am glad you have looked at some of the sources. The only two points I will comment on are the date - my error - I believe the correct date to be 1325. Second the citations ""Reg. Nig. Fol. 59/ Regal.fol. 99." etc are to the original folios from Arbroath Abbey - not the 19thC Miller sources which are derivative from the original. The folio sources should be left to allow anyone who wishes to check the original Ms to do so. I am aware of what Wikipedia is; I am aware of Bibliographical rules I use MRHA a standard in the Social Sciences in the UK. Ray Oaks (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have sounded ungenerous in my comments above - I have just read your full edit of the article. You have improved it considerably - Your talents should (Maybe are..?) applied to being a professional Editor or a Journal. Part of the frustration with Wikipedia is the arcane markup which I find tedious - but is necessary. I have found that on my Mac OS system I have to write and edit in Word and cut and paste into Wikisource. Getting lost in the process appears to be par for the course. You might be able to help?? - In order to provide a standard look and feel for similar Wiki entries on Medieval Hospitals I have been trying unsuccessfully to create a "Medieval Hospital" template - I find the Wiki Help - UNhelpful ! - I have some views on what is required and the naming of the categories e.g. Date Founded Date of Dissolution, Founder etc.. If you can advise AND think an standard template for medieval hospitals to be a useful addition to Wiki entries - please can you say. Ray Oaks (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, and thank you. I fully agree with you about the wiki markup and often wonder why anyone starts editing WP these days now its all got so complex. I take it you are referring to an "infobox" template for medieval hospitals? Current consensus appears to be to have fewer such templates rather than more, so perhaps using the existing {{Infobox hospital}} might work? Here's an example for St John the Baptist, using the more relevant parameters.

Quick facts Hospital of St John the Baptist, Geography ...

Hospital of St John the Baptist
Geography
Location	Arbroath, Angus, Scotland
Coordinates	56.5545°N 2.6107°W / 56.5545; -2.6107
Organisation
Care system	Medieval
Type	Medieval Abbey Hospital
Affiliated university	Arbroath Abbey
Patron	Unknown
History
Founded	c. 1325
Closed	c. 1560
Demolished	After 1560
Links
Lists	Hospitals in Scotland
Other links	Hospitals in medieval Scotland

Close

Clearly some of these don't really work (affiliation only seems to work for universities not abbeys), but if you can list out what other information should be included, then you can ask for this to be added to the infobox template (which is a lot easier than trying to set up a new one!). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Helpful. Allow me to look at this in more detail. Returning to this "work" next week.Ray Oaks (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Two Questions - if I may?? 1. How do I request an InfoBox - based on the above example?

2. Do you know if there is an output style in Endnote X5 for Wiki Source References I would like to make my references Wiki compliant - using the style in the article as edited by You? I am Mac OS based and use Endnote with Word to edit the Wiki articles. The Wiki system looks complex but Refworks holds all the data for a citation and I would like to export the reference in Wiki compliant style. [e.g. ^[1]</nowiki> |lines=1}}

Fine by me

Ray Oaks (talk) I am content wthi the editorial improvements Ray Oaks (talk)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ray Oaks. I have tidied up some things on this article, Canon Alexander Galloway to meet Wikipedia's layout and format. I have also moved the article to remove the birth/death dates in its title. The new article is at Canon Alexander Galloway. I would concentrate on showing in the summary lines why this subject is notable or you may face challenges to delete it. What this article needs in this summary to be just 2-3 lines that capture his notability and why he should be on WP. hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes etc. It has been a few years since I had time to do entries for WP. I see there are issues with some other entries. I will see if I can fix the questions raised. Ray Oaks (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added an introduction to the entry. I intend to add further sources biographical details and images to this entry over the next day or so. The entry as it stands should provide any reader with the bare bones of his life and importance. I trust this is satisfactory and in line with WP policies. Ray Oaks (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will adjust the end of the Summary to accommodate a link from St Machar Cathedral. Later to-day Ray Oaks (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ray Oaks. Coming along nicely now. I have added a few more links to other articles (and linked other articles that mention his name to your new one). I have also tidied up one or two of your references to make sure that other editors can see they are good references (e.g. Oxford University Press etc.). Looking much better now (and very interesting subject)! Britishfinance (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the text editing and the stylistic edits. I would like to use the term “Renaissance Man” as it is commonly used. i.e. “A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences” ["Renaissance man." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2011. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company] In a recent academic publication, I have considered if Galloway was such. [See, McAleese, R. 2019 'Canon Alexander Galloway – Scholar, Priest, or “Renaissance Man” (c1478x1552) ', Scottish Local History, 102: 13-20.] He was not a “Scottish” Reformation Man. He was Scottish but not a man of the Reformation. He was theologically un-reformed! The previous comment about his associations with Latomus, Erasmus etc. and his involvement at the execution of Patrick Hamilton with the Archbishop of St Andrews (so far not recorded) makes this claim seem inconsistent. Solution (s) – 1. delete this assertion in the Summary????; 2. Cite the SLHJ article? What do you think? 1. The term has a popular resonance; 2. Is this too much self-citation? (use - r.mcaleese@abdn.ac.uk)

Ray Oaks (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ray Oaks. The key thing you want in an article is stability. That means you want to be in the position of saying that "On date X (or in book Z), notable academic Y, called W "a Renaissance man". Then you are just chronicling what notable sources said (the goal of WP). When you get into stating that he was a "Renaissance man" on the basis of your interpretation of the facts, you are at a remove from that, and you will be at risk of another editor deleting your statement. The more you can stick to the former, the more stable your article will be.

Note, there is no need to email me to get me - just enter Britishfinance at the start of your reply and it will aleart me in Wikipedia. all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would cite teh SLHJ article. Britishfinance (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Point above about challenge and stability taken. Will follow. I am intermittent creator. Also note point about email - sensible. Ray Oaks (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Will use an alternative and clearer designation. .... He has a claim to be what some might call “a Renaissance Man”. ^[1] ... Will consider Scottish Reformation Man etc later.... Thanks Ray Oaks (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Apologies J had a look at this page I see comments from February :-( Will sort out the question/ suggestions Ray Oaks (talk)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Womb tombs, from its old location at User:Ray Oaks/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Womb tombs. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - I understand the original research comment. This wil have to be addressed Ray Oaks (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC) The editing will continue over the next two/tree weeks as sources are verified and images collected.Ray Oaks (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the stylistic edits. Ray Oaks (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Concept map 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 Wikipedia: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—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 Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I will investigate the text you have questioned. As far as I know all I have done is to cite publisged academic material. I will investigate later. ~~~ Ray Oaks (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I note the following text below attached to your message. This text is a citation to a published piece of academic history research. It has nothing to do with "Concept Maps". The citation below is late medieval history; long before anyone could think about "Concept Maps". :-)

1. " McAleese, R. 2019 'Canon Alexander Galloway – Scholar, Priest, or “Renaissance Man” (c1478x1552) ', Scottish Local History, 102: 13-20"~~~

Ray Oaks (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Scottish Local History reference was not attached to Diannaa's message, as you can see in this diff. I imagine that the problem here is that Ray is writing about his own research and citing himself (WP:SELFCITE, though I don't think it has yet reached the point of undue weight although that is something to keep a close watch over), so he may have unintentionally plagiarized his own writing. Biogeographist (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The content I removed was copied from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1076/ilee.6.3.251.3602, a copyright journal article.— Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am totally confused and in general fed-up with this approach to a problem I am unaware of. I was trying to do to ensure that Wikipedia had the best entry it could have for "Concept Map". Of course I had to make reference to published papers in academic literature. This is the way "knowledge" is created, disseminated, criticised etc. The editing I did was in a section of the entry where my name was mentioned. I was adding/ modifying the entry to reflect the debates that readers of a Wiki entry would be interested. At no time was I writing as an authority justifying what I had previously written. What "you" appear to say is that anyone editing a Wiki entry may not refer to their own work or indeed to a source of published work.  ???? As I am sure you know, science and the dissemination of knowledge is itself an open system. I fully understand the issue to self-referral. What do you want me to do? I have spent some time sourcing published texts written by others in the 1980/90/00 etc. I do not want to waste my time adding sources etc to a Wiki article if this is not permitted.

AS I have not retained a copy of the section of the Concept Map entry that has been removed, can you direct me to the last version of the full entry where I can re-assess what I added. I am happy to learn what not to do. I am frustrated by helping improve the entry and then told the additions are "inappropriate". Can you assist me? ~~~ Ray Oaks (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no way to view the removed alleged copyright violation. I wish I could view it too, since I revised your edits and my revisions were removed as well. The problem was that the text you added was too similar to the copyrighted article that you published, so it was judged to be a copyright violation.

Also, you said "The editing I did was in a section of the entry where my name was mentioned", but your name was mentioned in that section because you added your name there in this earlier edit in 2009. So the presence of your name in the article is entirely due to you. As I said above, I don't think it has yet reached the point of undue weight although that is something to keep a close watch over. Biogeographist (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

OK that is helpful. I had forgotten that I had referenced my KIM work in 2009 - mea culpa :-(

However, I am left with a more general questions. How do I now improve the Wiki article on Concept Maps?

I had a general research interest in knowledge and information mapping while I was at the U of Aberdeen in the 1970/80s. Being retired I can busy myself with my current interests in history etc. However, every now and again I get requests on concept maps! All I wanted to do was to improve the CM article. There are published sources "out there" not referred to in the CM article. (BTW I am aware that CM is one part of a general topic "Information Mapping") To do so, I need to reference published material which refers to my publications.

If you consider this conundrum of some interest/ importance - what should I do? If you suggest that I "withdraw" from the fray! - then I will have to avoid doing anything more to the Wiki CM article.

If you have the time can you suggest what can be done? ~~~ Ray Oaks (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't worry too much about it, since I am watching the page and will make appropriate edits if you start going too crazy with the self-citations, but so far I'm not concerned about it. One way to add an extra layer of prudence is to cite articles that discuss your work (secondary sources) instead of citing your publications directly. You can find these, for example, on Google Scholar by clicking on the "Cited by" link under your publication to see all the publications that cite it. Biogeographist (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John Mandeville into Barnacle goose myth. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful Talk comment about using Wikipedia text from an existing article - John Mandeville. I will try and comply with Wiki regulations. I regret I am not an expert in "wiki talk" my expertise in in history. I will see if I can follow your instructions i f not I will ask for more clarifications.Ray Oaks (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have looked at the wiki "templates" etc. and I am afraid it is "over my head". All I want to do is to provide the reader of a Wiki article on the BGM sources where they can explore further - if they wish. I am afraid I really don't understand your initial help. I want to reader of the BGM to realise that a sixteenth century writer of a herbal, (there are several versions of the original book - one referenced Ch. 167 with a Tree etc p. 1391 and another Ch 171 with an illustration of a Barnacle Goose standing adjacent to a branch (fig 2209) at page 525)) illustrated a barnacle goos tree and provided an account of seeing it etc. A standard "reference" at the end of the introductory paragraph to article section might refer the reader to the fact that some (not all!) of the previous text is drawn from the Wiki Article John Gerard....etc. How can I help you to help me?Ray Oaks (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about the talk page template. Just remember that whenever you copy text from one Wikipedia article into another Wikipedia article, you need to mention in your edit summary the name of the Wikipedia article that you are copying from so that it is clear that the author(s) is whoever added that content to the article that it was copied from, and not you. For example, your edit summary would say: copied content from [[John Mandeville]]; see that page's history for attribution. This attribution goes in your edit summary, not in the article content. Biogeographist (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That is very helpful. I am guilty of not providing a detailed summary into the edit information box. Sometimes I notice a comma, word in the wrong place and I not nothing. I am not a specialist wiki editor and need to become more aware though practice. I work largely with primary sources as far as far as I can and sometimes find a recursive use of words in Wiki articles, in original sources and in published work. This of course is at the heart of my current historical research where there is what some call Intertextuality. Thank you.Ray Oaks (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)