User talk:Rincewind42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bell

I'm sorry but we cannot be inconsistant like that, the telephone might be patented by Bell but this does not mean that he was the Inventor of the telephone.

I will state the reasons why :

  • The Telephone page here on wikipedia page DOES NOT recognise Bell as the inventor. So how in Gods name can the Scotland page on the same site say that he did? That is totally wrong and very unencyclopedic [1] [2]
  • The US house of representatives does NOT recognise Bell as the inventor [3]

Superdude99

[edit] Scotland edits

I'll reply here if that is OK.

The sentence I corrected in the medieval section, read exactly like this in the article before I changed it - which I'm sure you'll agree didn't make any sense.

"The Scots captured the fortress later known as EdinburghDuring the reign of King Indulf (954-962)."

I amended it with spaces and lower case letters as well as including the "first foothold in Lothian" bit because, (a) I think it is fairly significant, and the person who wrote it obviously did too. (b) Yes we need to cut down, but we need sentences to flow and the section you removed allows it to do that, whilst merging with the next sentence beginning with "The reign of....." Taking out that just makes the section look like Statement. Statement. Statement, and that's not very fluid.

The peer review suggested we cut down on snakes. I understand that long snakes should be cut down, but we can go too much the other way and have lots of short monotone sentences that are a bit jarring in the text - they would be criticised if it were to be reviewed because they just don't flow in the text leading from one point to another.

Another of the Law sentences I changed was "Combining features of both uncodified civil law, dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, and common law with mediaeval sources."

As far as I am concerned that is not a proper sentence, because it doesn't have the object of the "subject, object, verb". If this was to be reviewed you'd be asked "what?" combines features of uncodefied civil law etc. It looks like someone has forced a full stop in the middle of a proper sentence to make two sentences out of it. I was always taught at school that you should be able to take a sentence out of its surroundings, look at it on its own and understand the point it is making (even if you don't understand the subject matter). I wouldn't with the above sentence because the object is missing ie what the sentence is referring to.

Also In the Law section I amended your sentence - "For example; Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law."

It just doesn't sound or look like a proper sentence either, and again looks as if someone has forcibly put a full stop between two parts of a perfectly adequate sentence. I amended it to:

"Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland, most notably Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law"

which is a perfectly adequate and gramatically correct sentence and it isn't a snake either. If using "most notably" is construed as POV it could be changed to "for example" or "such as" to link the two parts of the same sentence together. The point being this is the same sentence.

As far adding in the parliament house statement, again this was to try and alleviate the monotone short jarring statements in the section, that just simply do not flow. I understand all the points about snakes, but sentences provided they make sense and are correct can be more than half a line long. Going too much the opposite way has just as bad an effect.

I hope that explains my rationale for the edits that I carried out. I really don't want that to sound too critical, because I genuinely think what you are doing needs to be done, but we need to have a fluid prose as well - and that is just as important as a factually good article Thanks Globaltraveller 10:49, 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.
Ignoring the typo. There is nothing wrong gramatically or linguistincally with the first sentence. I suppose it may read better taking out the comma to give: "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh which was their first foothold in Lothian." That is not an illegal construct, in any convention that I have seen.
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.)
I don't think any of those read very well IMHO - I think they read terribly poorly.
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)."
Very possibly, but given the person who wrote this is an expert in the field, I would imagine its inclusion is somewhat significant. Disregarding its significance I think its inclusion, as I previously stated makes the prose much more fluid.
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.
When I said it was not a sentence, it was my polite way of saying - it didn't make any sense, which it doesn't - it doesn't stand alone, in other words. In your own words it was an illegal grammar construct. Another of your "sentences" (using the definition in its loosest sense) was "For example; Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." which clearly cannot be a standalone sentence. For an introduction, there is absolutely nothing wrong - gramatically or otherwise - with: "Scots law has a basis derived from Roman law combining features of both uncodified civil law, dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, and common law with mediaeval sources."
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.
I sctually agree with your analysis here, but would probably tend towards the former rather than the latter. The "sentence" from your edit: "For example; Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." was/is completely incorrect.
I don't mind the English lesson, though I think it is an extremely abstract form of analysis and I don't think that you are altogether correct in some of your assumptions, and I certainly don't think your edits were correct.
Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of your analysis. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello to a fellow Discworld reader

hi, just saying hello - i like the name.--Bilbo B 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi Rincewind42, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow, Paisley and Johnstone Canal

Hi Rincewind42, I changed one of your references because it looked wrong. The series "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" was started in the early 1960s; and was first published in London by Phoenix House. However, unless there was an earlier version, Volume 6: Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders was published in Newton Abbot, by David & Charles, in 1971. The author was John Thomas. Your citation appears on page 116 in John Thomas' book. There was also a series "Forgotten Railways" and John Thomas wrote the volume on Scotland (published 1976 & 1981). H.P. White wrote "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" Volume 2, Southern England, and Volume 3, Greater London. He also wrote the introductory volume to "Forgotten Railways" it was called Forgotten Railways; and the volume in that series on South east England.Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The edition I referenced was co-authored by David St, John Thomas and Henry Patrick White. It appears I omitted part of the names when copy/pasting over to the edit box. I don't have access to other versions but if you say that the same information is in the 1971 edition then that is fine. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)