User talk:Globaltraveller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Globaltraveller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You may also be interested in Portal:Scotland and Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board Astrotrain 10:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Economy of Scotland

Kudos on all your work on that article! As the editor who expresses most interest in this topic, can I request your opinion on this:

(While you are there, you may want to have a look at the Cinema of Northern Ireland deletion nomination.) --Mais oui! 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate State and Jurisdiction

Hey there, please see the comments I left in the discussion part of Scotland under the title above. I also wanted to thank you for the great article. (Gary Joseph 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikinorthernireland

This edit by an IP address looks very much like the work of User:Wikinorthernireland. Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish independence

Although I see the justification at removing the {{pov}} tag on the Scottish independence article for now, your previous edit (moving the tag to a section) was slightly erroneous in the sense that a {{pov}} tag belongs at the top and a {{POV-section}} belongs in a specific section. I'll be having a trawl of the article and comments on the Talkpage over the next day or so to make sure the article itself is strictly NPOV and the qualms already raised on the talkpage have either been answered, or amalgamated into a comprehensive request for attention, which I will in time attempt to deal with. Just a quick heads-up anyway. --M0RHI 12:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr warning on Edinburgh

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Astrotrain

It is a genuine warning as you probably have broken the 3RR already- and could be reported, a warning is therefore required under this policy. It would be better for you to discuss concerns on the talk page appropiately rather than labelling valid edits as vandalism. Also deleting comments and warnings on your talk page is never advised. Astrotrain 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The other user was warned also. I was actually trying to do you a favour as you would probably be blocked for 24 hours if reported on WP:3RR. Anyway, the discussion is ongoing in the talk page- so hopefully the issue will be resolved. Thanks. Astrotrain 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britishness

Please state why the material you removed is against Wiki Policy? You have removed most of the article without adequate comment21:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing fully referenced material is vandalism. The material is from mainstream publications and represents stands of political debate.

I'll re-write this section to contextualise within the Britishness debate. I'm alsd adding Brown's recent speech on the links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I actually think the Barnett formula chat is actually not incorrect but that's just my POV and so irrelvant. some down in England are highlighting this as an issue with the union and thus eroding the notion of BritishnessWeggie 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland main page edits.

I notice you re-inserted the line "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh, their first foothold in Lothian." which I had previously edited and shortened. Rather than revert your revert, I though it best to explain why I think this shouldn't be as it is now.

The history section is too long. It's been agreed to shorten it. So only the most important details should be in the text. Extra information should be in the main article linked to at the top of the section. The comment about the "...first foothold in Lothian" is of low importance compared to other details. Mentioning that Scotland expanded and captured Edinburgh is sufficient for the brief space available.

Mais oui! and others have repeatedly asked for the history section (and the whole article in general) to be shortened. That means that some things have to be cut. Personally I don't think the Lothian comment adds any to the comprehensiveness of the history. We can live without it. There are more important sections of history that should be expanded. For example, there is scant mention of 18th and 19th Centuries when Scotland was at its peak.

Another edit - "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland, most notably Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." - This is not bad grammar. It's not good grammar either. The sentence is too long. It's an example of what the peer review called a "Snake". It needs to be split into two or more sentences. Besides, "most notably" is a potentially POV assertion. The word "most" needs citation or to be dropped. After the word "Scotland," should be a full stop. That's the end of a sentence. It's a long enough sentence already. The next statement about Udal law needs to stand independently as it's own statement. I suggest the following.

"Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland. The system called Udal Law used in Orkney and Shetland was based on Old Norse Law."

While not idea grammar, it does avoid a long snake.

One last wee thing If I may. In this sentence "The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court. Both courts are housed at Parliament House, Edinburgh which was the home of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland. " you added back in about the pre-union Parliament of Scotland. There were several reasons I chopped that line out. The previous use of the building is irrelevant trivia that doesn't add to our understanding of Scots law. . It's in the wrong place. It should go on the history of Parliament House, Edinburgh page not on the Law of Scotland section. There is a link to Parliament House, Edinburgh already so if the user wants more info about Parliament House, Edinburgh he can follow the link rather than crowd up the Scotland article. Also, The sentence is also yet another snake.

I hope you take the time to read all that. Sorry for it being such a long comment. Please reply bellow. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on these issues.

P.S. I notice the main Lothian page does not mention King Indulf even though he's clearly significant to that area's history. Rincewind42 09:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said in your reply that "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh, their first foothold in Lothian." Flows better than "The Scots captured the fortress later known as EdinburghDuring the reign of King Indulf (954-962)." Now I hold my hands up and say, there is a typo there. "EdinburghDuring" should be "Edinburgh, during" However, I was too lenient with my criticism of the grammar before. The first quotation above is an illegal construct. It is three sentences joined together.
1. The Scots captured a fortress during the reign of King Indulf (954-962).
2. The fortress was later called Edinburgh.
3. This was their first foothold in Lothian.
Now you can legally join two of these three together. In doing so you can save on repeating the objective noun. Though it does produce a snake, joining can improve sentence flow if used occasionally. As I did in the previous sentence. Less repetition also makes the full text shorter. However, you must not join all three. You may only join pairs.
If you join 1 and 2 above, you can choose to order them either way. "The Scots captured the fortress, later called Edinburgh, during the reign of King Indulf (954-962). This was their first foothold in Lothian." or "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh. This was their first foothold in Lothian." Either of these is acceptable.
You could join 1 and 3 above to produce "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962)The Scots captured a fortress. The fortress, later called Edinburgh, was their first foothold in Lothian." or "The Scots captured a fortress during the reign of King Indulf (954-962). This was their first foothold in Lothian, the fortress later called Edinburgh." Either of these is acceptable (though I think the last one reads poorly.)
You cannot join 1, 2 and 3 into one long sentence. It's bad grammar.
Besides, I still think we can live without the foothold bit. There is a citation on the main Scottish Midievel history page for this period. "Sometime in the reign of king Idulb (954–962), the Scots captured the fortress called oppidum Eden, i.e. Edinburgh.[18] Scottish control of Lothian was strengthened with Máel Coluim II's victory over the Northumbrians and the Battle of Carham (1018)."
Note that the last sentence, motioning Lothian, is dated 1018. Not contemporary with 954–962. The Scotland page is supposed to be a summery of the main history pages. Ergo it should not contain information that is omitted on the main pages. Since the main page make no mention of "first foothold", why should the Scotland page?
With respect to the following sentence. If it doesn't flow, change the following sentence not the previous. Flow goes from first to last not last to first. So the latter sentence is the one to edit.
Going on to law:
Off topic - You said "because it doesn't have the object of the "subject, object, verb"". Please note the order is subjective noun, verb, then objective noun. e.g. "The boy kicked the ball". There are a few exceptions that prove the rule such as "There comes the bus" which should really be "The bus comes here" but that's English for you. Sigh. Going back on topic...
You are correct that "Combining features of both uncodified civil law, dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, and common law with medieval sources." is not a sentence. It's three sentences joined together. It was four sentences before. I should really have put "It Combines features of..." Though that still isn't right. I could see there was an obvious sentence end after "Scots law has a basis derived from Roman law" That stands on it's own without any worry. But the next phrase puzzled me. The legal terms are quite mixed and I had intended asking for advice on rephrasing the line. However, looking at it again I now understand it. I'll break it down here, as much for my own thoughts as for anyone else.
1. Scots law has a basis derived from Roman law.
2. Scots Law combines features of both uncodified civil and common law.
3. The civil law dates back to the Corpus Juris Civilis.
4. The common law has medieval sources.
(I can't use "It" cause it would refer to Roman law not Scots Law)
There are many ways that can be joined to produce just two sentences. It may work best as 3 sentences. I think 4 sentences (above) is clunk. However, neither your edit nor mine edit are valid grammar. We need to try again.
As for "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland, most notably Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." It is again 3 sentences joined.
1. Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland.
2. An example of a regional law system is Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland (though I'd trim of "notable")
3. Udal Law is based on Old Norse Law.
One suggestion is: "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland, such as Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland. Udal Law is based on Old Norse Law." or maybe "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland. Udal Law, based on Old Norse Law, is an example of a regional law system that was used in Orkney and Shetland." You can try some others, but whatever way you go, you have to have 2 sentences for correct grammar here.
When dealing with snakes, we have some supper snakes. The one about civil law is a snake that ate a snake that had eaten another snake. I don't mind some snakes. I have some in this very post, however, lets keep to Adders, not Anacondas.
Sorry for the English lesson but it's the only way to explain my reasons. Rincewind42 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Lothian, old forms include Laudonia and Laudian. Referance "The Spottiswoode Miscellany: a collection of original papers and tracts, illustrative chiefly of the Civic and Ecclesiastical history of Scotland. By James Maidment - 1844: Page 444 to 445."

That Kenneth Macalpin 100 years before King Induff, attacked the saxons six times, and possessed himself of Melrose and Dunbar, two principal places in Laudonia; and Ranulf of Chester in his Phychronicon, written about the year 1380 gives this account from some old English annals, that Kineid, son of Alpin, invaded Pictland, distroyed the picts, subdued the saxsons six times and possessed all the country from the Scottish sea (i.e. from the Firths of Forth and Clyde) to the river Tweed

So here we have it that Indulf's capture of Edinburgh was not the first foothold in Lothian. There had been inroads made to the teritory of Lothian (then Laudonia or Laudian) before Indulf.
So the "first foothold" statement isn't true.

Rincewind42 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish national identity

I've opened a Request for Comment on Scottish national identity. As an editor with previous involvement in this article, you may wish to add a statement or comment. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/User_talk%7EGlobaltraveller_8d5a.html"