User talk:Train guard

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Let me add my welcome to Sarah's. It is great to have new editors on board! I hope we will have the opportunity to work together to improve our encyclopedia whenever our paths cross. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pornography
Sorry, in the diff, it looked like all you did was move the section up, rather than adding any material. I'll add your section back in. -- Rory 0 96 15:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Estonia
Regarding your comments regarding the article about the "History of Estonia" and the origins of Estonians: as Estonians are, by any measure, closely related to Finns, then the wiki-articles on the origins of Estonians and the origins of Finns should not differ too much in that respect (see "History of Finland"). In fact, there are much better wiki-articles for the discussion on various esoteric, out-of-date and far-fetched theories of the origins of Finnic-speaking peoples and the origins of Finno-Ugric languages than "History of Estonia" and "History of Finland". Your interest in this subject is very much appreciated. --3 Löwi 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Pornography
As long as it is all originally written and not copied from the site (the blog post copying from the article is a different story), that is perfectly fine with me. Don't worry, you aren't really pestering me; all the better to let me know so I don't accidently remove it again. -Whomp 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All done; the section is over there now. -Whomp 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Englsh Reformation
Please see Talk under the article Roger Arguile 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now added some comments. I notice that, in spte of your claim, you don't in fact say who you are. Of course, you don't have to say who you are or what you have read, but it makes things easier. I would really like to know why you prefer Dickens' scholarship to that of the later period and why youy think that Duffy's attempt to revise our understanding failed. Are you saying that Duffy's findings are false, that, for instance, his interpretation of the events at Morebath, is wrong, that Ireland, which remained entirely Catholic until Elizabeth planted Scottish protestants on them, was unaffected by the movements of European thought? Do I take it that you discount Susan Brigden's arguments in 'New Worlds, Lost Worlds'? Roger Arguile 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(As your reply is rather long and complex, I will again interpolate in brackets.)

I confess to finding it hard to respond to comments that are, in some cases, no more than unspecific questions.

(On the contrary, they are quite specific. I am asking you to question your attitude.)

I attempted to expand on particular points to which the response has been without substance (One really does not know what to do with expressions like ' For you, perhaps.' They do not belong in this kind of discussion).

(But they do! I don't think that you realise what we are supposed to do. We are meant to be as objective as possible. I'm trying to be, but I don't think that you are. That is NOT an accusation, by the way, I just think that you don't realise it.)

The comments about printing suggest that you have not read the arguments about its contestable impact. Perhaps I was wrong to delete your material but the more I look at the substance of your arguments, the more clear I am that I was in fact right.

(But who are you to say that? Look, I'm not engaged in a historical disputation. My point is to increase the degree of objectivity of the article by presenting historical points of view that readers will find in the historical mainstream, and ought to be aware of. I have a point of view, of course, but I try not to let it colour my contribution. But you seem to have a particular axe to grind.)

I shall attempt to deal with your three points.

a) Whether the article requires wider introductory background is arguable. The wider issues have to be dealt with somewhere, but they apply across the board. This article can be criticised as unfocussed, but the normal WP solution seems to me to be to add more.

(More? How have I added more, other than a few general paragraphs?)

I believe this would be a mistake. Yards could be written about the context.

(But yards were not written. Merely some statements and references for further study.)

You rightly advert to McCulloch. McCulloch begins his work in 1490 and nowhere makes no reference to Marsiglio (or Richard Hunne). I do not say that this is the only way of approaching it but ,frankly, out-of-date scholarship does not help.

(Who says that it is out of date?)

I am sorry to be blunt, but nowhere in what you have written is there any demonstration that you know about the breadth of the material.

(Actually, I do. I have either read or am familiar with most of the writers that you cite. Do not assume things about people that you do not know. I do not assume things about you or your scholarship, only your attitude towards the way this entry should be written.)

b) 'The minds of ordinary people'. You write as if it were easily deducable what such people thought. We have access only to the minds of those who wrote anything down. If anyone has looked at such writings it is Duffy.

(And what about Christopher Hill, Keith Thomas, and Dickens himself, all of whom predate Duffy in this approach?)

As is widely admitted, there is bound to have been a huge number of people whose minds we shall never penetrate. The attempt by such as Collinson, Marsh and others to discover what 'ordinary people' thought has yielded some fruit but not as much as had been once hoped.

(So are you suggesting that we should make no reference whatsoever to popular religion or anticlericalism?)

Whether Dame Julian and Marsiglio were ordinary people I leave you to judge;

(They were cited as examples of the English mystical tradition, not popular religion!)

the Lollards may have been nearer the mark but as some of them served their parish churches it is hard to know what was going on in their minds.

(So ignore them comletely? Is that what you are saying?)

The Riots on St. David's Down in 1549 are some indication of what parishioners thought but since those riots coincided virtually with the East Anglian riots which were not anti-prayer book I find it hard to draw conclusions. Frankly your assertion that there were two levels offers a staggering oversimplification.

(What oversimplification? There were clearly two levels. There was a world removed between what was going on in Henry's mind, and what was going on in the mind of an ordinary man who may have been a lollard or a sceptic. It is all there in historical record. You may have a different interptretation of what it means, but it is objective historical fact. And there should be mention of it.)

c) Your programme of providing constrasting views demands,on a subject as broad as this a huge expansion of the material.

(Why should it? It only needs a mention in a few paragraphs, if that, with references that readers can follow up if they want to. That's what I tried to do.)

But even if it were desirable, can I suggest with respect that on the evidence of knowledge that you have provided, tht you are not the person to do it.

(What knowledge have I provided? I haven't provided any detailed knowledge since this is not an argument about historicity, but the way an introduction should be written, to make things more understandable to the general reader. You don't seem to realise this.)

I have entered the fray on subjects on which I was not widely read - Native Americans (!) for one. I have withdrawn because I do not have the competance.

I am very prepared to deal with detailed assertions and conclusions.

(But that is not what we are arguing about!)

I am not prepared to engage with an unwillingness to engage with the material evidenced by comments like 'Wider in what way?' 'Er,no...' 'How so?' which does not seem to me to belong in serious academic debate.

(Are we taking part in serious academic debate? I think not. We are arguing about how to make the English Reformation explicable to the general reader. All I am saying is that their should be a short introduction, placing what follows in some kind of context; indicating that, for many people, the reformation must also embrace what was going on in the minds of ordinary people; and that the topic is a controversial one inwhich thistorians hold, or have held, contrasting views. All accomplished in a neutral and objective way....or as near as possible. What is so difficult about that?)

Any comments made on WP are to a degree short-hand and requires a willingness to interpret rather than a demand for explication which space does not allow.

(And how much space did I take up?)

You may feel you have offered an olive branch which I have trodden on.

(Why are you personalising this? I don't know you from Adam. The same ought to be true for you. I was just explaining what my motivation was.)

I am sure that the first part can be improved. The trouble is that the background to the Reformation is so huge and disputed (in spite of what you wrote).

(Hang on a minute! That IS what I wrote! God, I'm sounding like Ernie Wise.....)

You say that you have no point of view: is there not an implication in what you write that it had something to do with an emergent literate, thinking class.

(Historians have written that. Readers perhaps ought to be aware of it. I also said that views of the Reformation had been revised by other historians, to stress an inherent conservatism in opular religion. Readers should be aware of that, too.)

I have heard that before but nothing that I have read has convinced me that this had anything to do with it. Printing could be used to spread either catholic or protestant ideas. I happen to think that what signifies is who was in control. I also think that Henry did not know what he was unloosing, but I have not written that because I cannot demonstrate it.

(Fine. But those are personal views. I didn't write personal views.)

But I conclude by repeating that what you have written does not indicate a detailed knowledge of the current literature of the last twenty years.

(Well, if I was taking part in a historical debate, I would have written differently. But I wasn't.)

I may be maligning you, of course.

(That's how it appears to me.)

By all means write something. It is your privilege; but I refer you to the warning on all WP edits. Roger Arguile 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer us to co-operate. But you must realise that we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Can you see that?

--Train guard 10:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't respond well to the kind of questioning in which you seem happy to engage. As far as I am concerned the matter is one of academic debate. I am not helped by your preferred method of responding. I, for my part, have clearly failed to lower the temperature by my response. I take it that you do not particularly want me to answer your questions above. I confess that it would be hard to do so, since some of them appear to be rhetorical. Roger Arguile 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, Roger. I'm not going to prolong this argument. I will shortly place a draft of what I would suggest the introduction ought to be on the article discussion page, and invite comment from you or anyone else.

--Train guard 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I promise to look at it and comment. Roger Arguile 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Socialism
I afraid I don't have to give notice for reverting edits - especially edits made without discussing and arriving at a consensus first. You had every right to make the edit, I had every right to change it - the correct procedure now is to discuss it throuigh in the talk page to see if we can find common ground. i'm afraid I agree with editors who generally think that we should aim to have a stable lead, there may be some scope to include the point you want to make later in the article, but the version you originally posted put undeue weight/prominence on the idea of human perfectability.--Red Deathy 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

John Dee
The addition of a schoolboy tradition has nothing to do with the correction to the previous section. Aside from the fact it is not cited, it is is trivial and has little to do with the section in which it is placed. The speculation as to where Dee resided also has no place in the article unless you add a reliable source (in which case we can drop the probably). If you have have a source to place the picture where you claim then add it to the caption, not halfway up the page with no reference to the picture in the article at all. You had indeed put this information on the talk page, but you didn't make it clear you intended to add it into the article. Yomangani talk 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Form criticism
If the section was written by you, it was original research, and did not belong on Wikipedia. It is also up to you to explain how it was supposed to make sense. Reinistalk 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, unless its accuracy is verifiable by reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for your didactic material. This is not math, where the applied examples are usually generic enough that they can't be original thought. Also, just raising questions and not giving answers belongs in a textbook, not in an encyclopedia.

About the definition, true enough, I read it again and it does make sense, but it's very muddled compared to EB. Reinistalk 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. About your other questions, read the Wikipedia policies more carefully. I consider this discussion over. Reinistalk 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Man: A Course of Study (MACOS)
A template has been added to the article  A Course of Study (MACOS), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. At the very least,it needs some references for notability. DGG (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Puritan introduction
I agree that the introduction to the article should probably have some discussion about the Puritans' theological beliefs, but I think that with the edits you made, the Introduction to the article is too long now. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the lead section for a long article should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. The Puritan article already had a 4-paragraph introduction, so after you added three paragraphs, we're way over the limit at 7 paragraphs. If you want to re-work the introduction to four paragraphs, that'd be appreciated - otherwise I'm going to just revert to the previous introduction, which, while it wasn't perfect, was more concise.

Adam_sk (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to summarize the Puritans' theological beliefs so succinctly. Puritanism was ultimately a movement, and as is the case with many movements, what was important to the movement changed over time:  Vestments were the big issue in the 1560s; conventicling in the 1570s; predestination in the 1620s and 1630s; etc.  I think it's a little misleading, therefore, to contrast an Anglican position with the Puritan position in the way that you did in your introduction:  for example, on the issue of the sacraments, all of the Elizabethan bishops subscribed to the Priesthood of all Believers, while Archbishop Whitgift, one of the harshest persecutors of the Puritans in the later Elizabethan period, was also one of the staunchest defenders of the doctrine of predestination in the Church of England.  I think it therefore makes more sense to attempt to establish the historical context for Puritanism rather than attempt to make statements about what "Puritans believed".  For example, while it's true that the Puritans in the 1590s were doctrinally Calvinist, it is also true that in the 1590s, being doctrinally Calvinist didn't necessarily make you a Puritan, since even Archbishop Whitgift was a Calvinist in this period, so that being a Puritan in the 1590s was associated with a different set of tendencies than being a Puritan in the 1630s was.


 * I think that an attempt to delineate what the "Puritans believed" is further problematized by the fact that the Puritan movement ultimately split into several different denominations: Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist. Each of these denominations have things that are central to their denominational tradition, and all come out of the Puritan movement.  However, I think it would be a mistake to, e.g. take the Savoy Declaration, or the Baptist position and then hold that out as what "Puritans believed".  However, both the Savoy Declaration and the position of the Baptists in some authentic sense flows out of the Puritan movement, and there are suddenly some Puritans who were (or who became) Congregationalists or Baptists.


 * I therefore think that an historical introduction makes more sense for the article. I do apologize if I breached wiki-etiquette by not consulting you before making the change.

Adam_sk (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Sacré, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull and Great Northern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Boyle (politician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Leyland and Asquith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)