User talk:Limulus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Limulus asked for elaboration on my comment Would it interest you to know that there is a opportunity to achieve a great and positive change. To lucrative begin an effort of modernization with out the ecological and environmental problems. And with out the time, energy, and resource consumptions of today.

A continuing interest in the issues of sustainability over the past 30 yrs. Has evolved over time. The populations levels of wellbeings are not exactly the product of its own want and willingness to work at those accomplishments. The differences in the achievements of wellbeings between one society and another are more determined by its availability of the necessary time it takes to accomplish things. Which is today aided by the availability of energy and resources. An availability in time, energy and resources which are being unecessarily restricted through the resistance of the providers to modernize. The most important and influencing processes are the ones which are the most commonly and repeatitively encountered in an efforts accomplishment. All human efforts in the persuits of wellbeings are commonly linked to the infrastructures. A specific area of infrastructures which I call collectively Distribution Processes. Have the greatest influence in determining the limits in what a society may or may not accomplish. A efficiency or increased ability here in these distribution processes promises to become a great sum when multiplied by the whole of the users and thier numerous repetitions.

A review of these distribution systems shows that they are the restricted continuations of the independent and hastily implemented processes achieved in a far off time and in a much different understanding and capability than which exists today.

A continuing interest in the issues of sustainability suggest that such a state of sustainability rests in the accomplishment if two abilities which do nit exist today. The existince in a full set of infrastructures which not only meet but exceed the populations needs, wants, and desires. And of course accomplished in a manner of forms and processes whose impacts in use by the population do not put the reliability of life's living working support processes at risk in loss. Enclosing the distribution processes suggest it will allow these much needed abilities to become realized. Enclosing the collective of distribution processes is the most ecologically and environmentally sound way to achieve them. It is also the very best way to achieve them.

In a secure and precisely controlled environment these process will become opened to the greater advantages of applying many abilities which can not be so easily or reliably accomplished in the open environments of today's processes. .

In a secure and cintrolled envuronment transport can be reasonably achieved with out nearly all of the time, energy, and resources of today. In the reduced cost of investment in a smaller structural and technological undertaking in permanent components.

Enclosure is an evolutionary step. A change in form which lends an increased capability to become realized.

In an attemp to evaluate the feasibility of such a integrated distribution system.or IDS.

not having a specific design. I assumed that the cost of today could represent the limits of what spending could be applicable in an alternative system.

The actual cost of today's distribution processes are not widely known. However I did find 3 annual costs which would not ocurr in an IDS.

highway spending in 2010 was over $200 billion. Accidents $300 billion. And energy $1.8 trillion.

Kind of sad isnt it. To understand the S200 billion spent on highways is unavoidable joined to over $2 trillion in accidents and energy. Seems a very poor investment return.

I calculated that this unavoidable spending in just these 3 instances could alternatively support an alternative investment in permanent components. the same level of cost as today could alternatively support 250,000 miles at $460 million a mile. I suspect a $100 million a mile may be sufficient. Or about 20% of today. which is not actually a true cost. But is the cost of investment in a limited amount in required provision. Which will again become divided by a greatly increased usage.

Understand this process has a fixed cost. Which then allows a far greater usage to occur. In a near lack of energy and resource consumptions and in markedly increased speeds, safety, ease of use and convenience. the populations needs, wants, and desires are not and never have been met. They are today highly restricted. its not the fuel cost which prevents me from traveling long distances. Its all the time it takes, the inconveniences, and discomforts which limits my mobility.

Taking into account a greater usage could put the per mile cost at less than 1%.

No accidents, energy, or resource consumptions. No ecological or environmental impacts. All in a unprecedented speed, ease of use and convenience.

The question is how to go about securing the significant interest it will take to bring it into that reality of accomplishment it so needs to become. I really dont know what to do with this understanding.

Any ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLSJr (talkcontribs) 05:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I award Limulus a barnstar for maintaining an NPOV policy, being open-minded and helpful, and working tirelessly to be an extraordinary contributor to Wikipedia. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For you to put wherever you want, if you want it. Thanks for going the extra mile to improve the Anderson Cooper article (and other articles) as much as you have. Best. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! :-) -- Limulus 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job[edit]

Excellent work on Toxicofera! --Mike Searson (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2008 newsletter for Saskatchewan[edit]

An image which you have recently uploaded into wikimedia commons has been chosen for the December 2008 newsletter for Saskatchewan. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia and wikimedia. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Harris, Saskatchewan[edit]

I popped into wikimedia commons, and re-categorised the images you have uploaded. You took some awesome pictures. I started a new category for the Harris pictures named Harris Saskatchewan so all the photos of the placename could be together. Also, in this way the commons category can be added to the wikipedia article as well. Then I added the subject categories ie museum, grain elevator, train, water tower, etc, etc to the individual photos as well, so they could be easy to find by place or subject. This is a nice big category to help find subjects for your photos in wikimedia commons Category:Buildings in Canada Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bumble Bee[edit]

Thanks for your recent edit on the Bumble bee, but especially on the info I put into the Etymology section - makes much better reading now you've jigged it around a bit.--hydeblake (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it in the first place! :) -- Limulus (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Fyi it looks like you're at WP:3RR. Lionel (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring; I see for example that you removed part of "Images of children, crime and violence" asking "what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?" It has to do with the "social conservatives" part that's mentioned and Regnery is mentioned further in also: "Initially, Reisman was targeted by some as a proxy to attack Regnery." Regarding your edits, other than shuffling sections around, did you have a specific concern? -- Limulus (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, by my count, I don't think I'm more than two for today. Not that I want to get to three; let's work together please. If you have more than a few questions about how the article is written, please add them to the talk page for the article. -- Limulus (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding Reagan is SYNTHY. Lionel (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Checking the relevant source ([1] which mentions Regnery and "the conservatives now heading the Justice Department" but not Reagan) I will concede that this may be WP:SYNTH issue and will remove the phrase "during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan" -- Limulus (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr Reisman[edit]

Hi, for what its worth I emailed a picture request to Dr Reisman. Lets see what happens, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Very curious to know how she replies. -- Limulus (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


...for your contribution to the article Carl Linnaeus! Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Especially recently when you helped me! I hope you will choose to help with the Monstroso stuff as well. Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) I will try to make a point to look at that soon. -- Limulus (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Know thyself[edit]

Looking at pictures of pages by Linnaeus, I noticed that he used the term "nosce te ipsum" to define the taxon "Homo," so I searched the phrase on Wikipedia, which as you can see if you click here: nosce te ipsum, links to the article know thyself, although the article itself could be more helpful in explaining what he meant when he said it there in that particular text. He seems to me to have been using it differently than elsewhere, maybe inviting the reader to look away from the paper and instead to look to him/herself to define the term.

From what I understand, anyone who studied Latin (as Linnaeus had) would recognize that as a famous quote. We do link it in the Linnaeus article BTW, from the letter to Gmelin. ("It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself.") -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but one could employ the phrase for various purposes, according to the article. Don't you think that the term is used differently in the two cases you mention? I mean, when he placed it in the box as opposed to when he used it in the letter. In the letter, it does seem to mean something like "but man learns to know himself", but in the box it seems more like "you the reader may simply know yourself". To your knowledge, how have experts translated that taxobox? Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "sed homo noscit se ipsum" from the letter, you should see the ref; to quote the discussion from 2005:

The thing is, there's a very familiar phrase "homo nosce te ipsum", traditionally rendered "Man, know thyself", said to be the words written over the entrance to the Delphic Oracle (alternatively the Pythian Oracle, or sometimes attributed to Socrates. The Greek is "gnothi seauton". Sort of the Greek/Roman equivalent of one of those sayings we all know that might have been said by Mark Twain or Groucho Marx or possibly George Bernard Shaw). I think "homo noscit se ipsum" would have been instantly recognized as a clever verbal echo of "homo nosce te ipsum" to Linnaeus' correspondent. Take a look at footnote seven to the letter's text at [2] for evidence that the letter's editors also see an echo of "nosce te ipsum" here, and for a reference, unfortunately in Swedish, to a discussion of "know thyself" as a criterion for separating genera.

I basically take from that they are both referencing the same thing. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In either case, as the question "What does it mean to be human?" is one of the most important as can be imagined, I think that it's a glaring omission that Linnaeus as notable user of "nosce te ipsum" when he define Homo not only does not have a subsection there, but is not even included in the notable other users section. I would like to remedy the situation but first I thought of you and wondered if you might not be the ideal person to do so. So here I am writing this now in the hopes of interesting you into adding Linneaus's "Homo nosce te ipsum" to the list there of the most important usages of this term.

Totally agree that it should be mentioned in that article, in the "Later usage" section. I will add it right now. -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm so happy. Thank you very much. Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, didn't he once say "I am Homo sapiens"?

I am not aware of that. Can you supply a ref? -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd seen it on Wikipedia somewhere, maybe when we were doing the invalid taxa and you had listed several references for me to look at. Either that or I was searching Google Scholar and it wasn't Wikipedia. It was like "Homo sapiens ego sum." But actually, if you haven't seen it that makes me think I must have dreamed it or something, because you seem very familiar with this stuff. Also I tried Googling it and gave up quickly when I didn't find it.
You may well have seen something, but it's important to find a ref to make sure you're not misattributing something... I'm not hugely familiar with the Latin and I'm always learning :) If you see it again, please be sure to mention it. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Rest assured, I would never add to an article without a proper referense. I might, however, ask someone about who seemed as if they might now, as a means to finding a reference. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And that because of this, when the rule was made that each taxon have an existant Holotype, someone said that it would be the body of Linnaeus, because the location of his body is known and would theoretically be available for study (not that this will ever happen, but they wanted to be consistant with the rule).

From the lede: "In 1959, Carl Linnaeus was designated as the lectotype for Homo sapiens, which means that following the nomenclatural rules, Homo sapiens was validly defined as the animal species to which Linnaeus belonged."
Excellent. In my opinion, this information should be in the article Homo sapiens. I'll check but I don't think it's there right now. Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that that's the most appropriate article to include it in (please note Wikipedia:Main article fixation which specifically mentions the Human article as one that gets too much stuff put into it that should actually go into sub-articles). The Homo article might be a better place for it if you want to put a mention of it somewhere. In fact, I will add it as a footnote where the article mentions him. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, to my mind at least, this fact is among the many important facts about not only Linnaeus but about the species Homo sapiens. If you agree, and if we can cite it properly, would you be interested in finding the proper place(s) for this information on Wikipedia? I was thinking the article about him, that about the species, and/or maybe the article Holotype.

It's already in the lectotype article. -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Is it your feeling that there probably aren't any other places on Wikipedia where this information would be appropriate? Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There may be more, but I think the most important ones have already been taken care of. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help before, and please let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Chrisrus (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Expedition to Lapland[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I had to revert your changes to Insectivora and Eulipotyphla, since cut-and-paste moves like the one you did are not okay because they violate Wikipedia's license. Instead, use the "move" button or open a requested move.

However, I think it'd be better to have separate articles on Eulipotyphla and Insectivora. We don't need articles on every name, but Insectivora is a concept that is so historically significant as well as distinct from the current clade Eulipotyphla that it's probably useful to cover them separately. On a related note, Wikipedia should really stop using MSW 3's orders Erinaceomorpha and Soricomorpha, since no one really uses them and it's clear that Soricomorpha is paraphyletic. I haven't gotten around to doing that, and it probably requires some discussion at WT:MAMMAL.

Thanks for your work on mammal phylogeny, Ucucha (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium[edit]

Thank you for the kind words. Help in keeping the article neutral would be appreciated very much. PRONIZ (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, sir. May I ask you a question?[edit]

What does the Latin word "pardo", as in "pardo felis" mean? I want to say "dark-colored." (It's for the article pardofelis). Wondering, Chrisrus (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! ^_^ One has to be careful here, as we are not latin/greek experts, and try to find a reference; see wikt:pardos, wikt:pardo & wikt:pardus. It can mean "brown" or "greyish-brown" as in Pardo, BUT it would seem more likely in the case of felines that it derives from panther, e.g. note 'leopard' is a compund word: Felis_pardus#Etymology "In antiquity, a leopard was believed to be a hybrid of a lion and a panther, as is reflected in its name, which is a Greek compound of λέων leōn (lion) and πάρδος pardos (male panther)." Hope that helps! -- Limulus (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Pest (1917 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (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) 10:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for looking at the tritium article. I appreciate your concern about old research, but old research does not necessarily go out of date just because it is old. The biological half-life of radioactive elements seems likely to remain fairly constant for long spans of time. You are welcome to locate and cite more recent studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpritikin (talkcontribs) 08:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit also changed the text to say "The NRC claims that [HTO has short bio. half life] Actual studies have found..." Implying that NRC is lying or has never seen this research in the 40 yrs since it was done. As such, it's POV. -- Limulus (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


Limulus, I appreciate the attention to accuracy, but RELAP5-3D has been used to develop and model nearly every modern reactor.

How can that be? Its article (which you started less than a week ago!) says that "Initial release July 6, 1997"; "nearly every modern reactor" was developed before that!

I think the links are helpful. Asauers (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-9) which certainly did not use this software in its development, but had a RELAP5-3D link added anyway. Additionally, even if that were true, while the software is notable enough for its own article, adding it indiscriminately would be like adding links to Vulcanization or Octane to the See also of every model of car article. -- Limulus (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
When the code was split, it was renamed "RELAP5-3D." But the history of the code goes much further back, and this is briefly explained in the history section of the article. By the early 80s, it was at version 5, and before that, it didn't even run on PCs. The molten-salt reactor was actually a joint-effort across the Department of Energy complex. It's a helpful link, in my opinion. (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
For example, here is a paper from 1968: "RELAP 2- A digital program for reactor blowdown and power excursion analysis (Digital program for reactor blowdown and power excursion analysis). KV MOORE, WH RETTIG 1968. 22 Nuclear Engineering(AH).[3] (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Please keep replies on User_talk:Asauers#RELAP5-3D, thanks -- Limulus (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Limulus. You have new messages at Talk:Pokhran-II.
Message added 11:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Crud. I think you're right; will fix :) -- Limulus (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for pointing it out. Fixed using a much more reliable method: zero-width joiner character (‍). -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for fixing that! I also learned something new :) -- Limulus (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thorium-based nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fallback (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) 11:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your recent artistic articles, particularly Center for Maine Contemporary Art, I award you this barnstar :). I have also given you the 'autopatrolled' user right to signify the excellence of your writing. Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :D -- Limulus (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem :). Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Actinides vs fission products[edit]

Your edit of june 19 seems to have changed the position of 241Am, 226Ra and 247Bk (i.e. put them in a different decay chain) Ssscienccce (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that; I'll fix it right away! -- Limulus (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


Thanks, Limulus, for your recent topical articles on nuclear issues. I've been trying to help where I can, but am generally happy to defer to your judgement on formatting etc. Remove the lone EL, if you like, until we can find a better position for that material. regards, Johnfos (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pandora's Promise[edit]

I have removed the references again and left the reasons at both my talk page and the article page. I have copied our conversation from my talk page to the article page as well and I suggest we make take any further discussion about this topic there. Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


I wasn't able to insert a correct translation to your file, so I just uploaded it as GermanyWind-de.svg. If you want, you can fix the german translation "Deutschland Wind Kapazität und Erzeugung" to "Windenergie in Deutschland seit 1990" etc. Greetings Kein Einstein (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Day[edit]

Thanks. It's just one of those things that sometimes happens. I went back to doing Wikipedia articles, but I didn't have the heart to be the sarcastic guy that I was during my AfD days. I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving day and, if you live outside the U.S., then a good day Thursday-- and no matter where you are, a good weekend. Mandsford 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Limulus-- I'm glad to hear your news! If somebody does try to nominate it, let me know and I'll do what I can to go to bat for your article, which, BTW, looks great. Mandsford 01:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)



Would it interest you to know that there is a opportunity to achieve a great and positive change. To lucrative begin an effort of modernization with out the ecological and environmental problems. And with out the time, energy, and resource consumptions of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLSJr (talkcontribs) 18:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, could you elaborate please? -- Limulus (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)