User talk:Helvetius

Re: Socialism and William Thompson

I haven't come across that quotation in the OED, but I'm sure you're not lying. In fact, most sourcebooks do say that that term "socialism" originated around 1830, so the assertion that it orgiginated in 1829 with Thompson seems plausible. Nevertheless, the article on socialism at Wikipedia is very broad, and we should probably not get into the obscure details about who coined the term "socialism" and when exactly. If you want to do that, the History of socialism article is a more appropirate place. But even there you would need something more than a primary source and a dictionary—perhaps a few academic essays or books, although they would still have to stand up to the more conservative findings of sourcebooks. I'm not disputing the occurance of a division between Thompson and Owen, nor am I disputing that Leroux introduced the term "socialism" to France in 1834. I'm simply letting you know that the article intentionally glosses over these details. Like I said, you may be more interested in the History of socialism, where things get a little more specific. -- WGee 03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the History of socialism page is the right place to start, particularly as the current position is to start with the erroneous statement that the word entered English from French when the reverse is true. Having grown up from 4 yrs onwards in France and Suisse Romande, I am bilingual and well aware that, although English has an overall larger vocab than French, in the specific area of political words, French has a larger vocab than English. Nonetheless, despite the latinate derivation, "socialism" is in actual fact an English neologism, not a French one, and given that this is counter-intuitive to many people's preconceptions, it needs to be backed up with some facts and references. Something tells me shifting the ground on this one is going to take me a while... Helvetius 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite a source for your contribution? Since it is not in general sourcebooks, it doesn't qualify as an "elementary fact" that would not need a citation. -- WGee 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC) User:WGee[reply]

In response to request for citations. The OED itself (easiest access), Richard Pankhurst's "William Thompson" (1954, 1991) currently out of print. "The Cooperative Magazine", 1828 - 1830 (only readily available copy, British Library) Helvetius 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I "created" your userpage so that your username won't be a red link anymore. Editors tend to prejudiciously dismiss the edits of "red-linkers" because they are often vandals or single-issue POV-pushers. -- WGee 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC

Fair enough, that's what it's there for. In the end I've been impressed enough by the impact that the political ideas of people who were long dead before I was born have had upon me and others, that I see identity as being a very poor second to ideas.Helvetius 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the essay by Richard Pankhurst that you were talking about [1]? If so, it would be great if you could provide a quotation, since many people and local libraries do not have access to JSTOR. Also, could you provide the details about the edition of the OED in which you found the reference to Thompson? -- WGee 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I was away. On the plus side, I was down in London at the British library doing research on this (and related). To answer: Yes, that I believe that is the correct Pankhurst text (tho' I also have no access to JSTOR) it was actually released as a book in '54 and again by Pluto in '91. I'll look on tracking down exact reference. The edition of the OED is the Second, which I'm presuming is the current one given that it's the reference one in the BL and my local city library. I also now have a photocopy of the actual text (i.e. first use of 'Socialist') which is actually from the November 1827 issue of the Cooperative Magazine (p. 509)- so I got the year wrong. Quote: "The chief question on this point, however, between the modern (or Mill and Malthus) Political Economists, and the Communionists or Socialists, is, whether it is more beneficial that this capital should be individual or in common?"

Also see Pankhurst's footnote reference to Max Beer in Ch. 10, p. 70 of the 1991 Pluto ed. of said book: "During the eighteen-twenties Thompson was often in London, where his tireless propaganda gave impetus to the rapidly expanding Co-operative Movement. He was the driving force in the historic debates of the Co-operators which began at Chancery Lane in 1825 and were later transferred to Red Lion Square. It is believed that the term 'Socialism' was first coined at these debates [1]". The footnote reads: "1. M.Beer. A History of British Socialism (1929), Vol. I, p. 187." I'll check out the Beer reference by the end of the week. Helvetius 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings: I'm something of a Thompson scholar, myself. Most of what has been posted is good and valuable, although I have one objection: There is no evidence he'd read Ricardo or was responding directly to Ricardo. The term "Ricardian socialist" is now generally considered to be an unfortunate misnomer at best (see, e.g., J.E. King's 1983 essay, "Utopian or scientific? A reconsideration of the Ricardian Socialists" in the History of Political Economy; also David Reisman's intro in Vol 1 of Democratic Socialism in Britain, p lxi). The term has two main sources: Esther Lowenthal's 1911 book, The Ricardian Sociaists and Foxwell's introduction to the English translation of Menger's book (which does not itself use the term). But the idea that all value is created by labor can be traced back at least as far as John Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Gov't.

Unenclosed (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree. I've no idea who's decided to put in that sentence about reading Ricardo (or corresponding to him). The "Ricardian Socialist" trope actually originates with Marx (Poverty of Philosophy, iirc, if not then either Contribution to a Critique... or Theories of Surplus Value) and, after him, Engels. It's then picked up by Foxwell who seems to blame Ricardo for the entire socialist critique of political economy (mostly, AFAICS, due to being a raving anti-Semite). Professor Noel Thompson's book "The People's Science", despite it's faults on W. Thompson, is good at debunking the "Ricardian Socialist" label and demonstrating a much clearer debt to Adam Smith's (somewhat confused) theory of value. In any case, Thompson's critique is not really centred around a theory of value, possibly another reason why Marxist scholars have ignored him. Helvetius (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed the extraneous Ricardo references from the W.T. article and amended the Ricardian socialism article to give more up to date assessment of the validity of that category referencing King and N. W. Thompson (and added the Marx reference).Helvetius (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commune and intentional community

You have set interwiki from Commune to fr:Communauté intentionnelle. But from fr:Communauté intentionnelle interwiki leads to Intentional community. In English, commune is one of types of intentional communities, what's about French? May be better create French page fr:Commune (communauté intentionnelle) and then put interwiki to it? Alexander Roumega (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, "commune" does not have that association with intentional community in French (outside of Québec, where that sense has presumably been acquired as a loan-word from the surrounding anglophones). In French when you say commune, it's the local municipality you are talking about. And in fact the interwiki link to the English equivalent from fr:Commune does go to en:Municipality, correctly. So I'm a little unsure about creating the fr:Commune (communauté intentionnelle) page if it doesn't really have common currency in francophone usage. I'm not sure what the best solution is exactly. But it's definitely the case that the pre-existing interwiki link from the english was a case of fr:Faux-ami. Helvetius (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience

Sir, thanks for being patience re: the searching for sources regarding the exact position of Mu'tazilism within Islam. Without going too deep into personal details, my laptop more or less stopped working and I only just now got a consistent, functioning computer here at work. I'm pressed for time at the moment but now, I should be able to log in consistently every day and I haven't forgotten my pledge to share sources on the article's talk page so we can determine how exactly the Mu'tazila should be categorized. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Helvetius (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 85.115.53.202. This is my work address. Helvetius (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not your work address, that is the address of Forcepoint Cloud London (unless y ou happen to work there, but even then, you are using their proxy). You'll need to disable your use of the proxy in order to edit. The block should clear up, 24 hours after you do so. Yamla (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The IP is only anon blocked (see block log) and accounts including this one have been using it to edit. If you still find yourself unable to edit then you will need to copy the full blocking message for us to be able to help you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm definitely logged in alright. Still getting the same block: Helvetius (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 85.115.52.0/23 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s): Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider. Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. [[User:Helvetius|Helvetius]] ([[User talk:Helvetius#top|talk]]) 13:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined using whatismyip.com. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. If you are using a Wikipedia account you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appealing using the unblock ticket request system.

This block has been set to expire: 23:55, 26 January 2023.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

You still need to disable your use of forcepoint if you wish to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, note there are multiple overlapping blocks that apply to that IP address. The pertinent one is this one, which is correctly not anon-only. It's blocking use of forcepoint entirely, as per no-proxies. --Yamla (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of feminists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anna Wheeler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pobal (IE) (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pobal (IE) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pobal (IE), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Helvetius! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pobal (IE)

Hello, Helvetius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pobal (IE), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pobal (IE)

Hello, Helvetius. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pobal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]