User talk:Lycurgus/ArkivEnd

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


I'd be a super in 552 months

Trying to channel time I would spend on en:WP content into other activities, will respond to emails if possible, however I am not an admin here and my time for the standard tragedy of the commons drama in such scenes and acts as the David North¹ matter, Sicko, u.a.m., (cf. archives) is very limited. Lycurgus (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

¹ It appears the SEP/GRPI were able to operate here unopposed and suppress the previous article David North (Trotsykist) and it's discussion which glaringly showed their attempt to suppress what the "Notes on the SEP/GRPI Puzzle" article linked above is referring to. There were more details supplied by others, but the main thing it showed was how Joe Kay and presumably others from the group in question attempted to simply suppress the discussion. I think it's the obscurity of this group and especially the obscurity of socialism in US politics that allows this to happen here. All politics is either Democrat or Republican and the other stuff just doesn't matter should it become known. If this was about video games or something the wiki community process would probably have worked better. Lycurgus (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

EM Communication Implications[edit]

Additionally, with respect to Kurzweil's argument in Ch. 6 of "The Singularity Is Near", there is another issue. If we assume that current physics is correct in what it positively states, then there is a strong violation of the Copernican principle. This is because since EM signals further and further away must correspond to events that much further back in time up to the limit imposed by the overall evolution of the universe, probably in fact back to the second generation of stars. This in turn implies that our knowledge of ETI in all but a tiny section of time and space must be impossible by this means. Search by such means requires that the signal either be very long ago or pretty close to the Earth. However except for the observed distribution of galaxies, there is no reason to assume that such would be anything other than randomly distributed within that distribution. Indeed, the rate of species attaining to the singularity should be increasing in time over the period from the middle of the second generation of stars so that most should be relatively recent, in effect making the contribution of those long ago less than significant as a term in comparison to the location bias. (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (6 Harvest 4706 公元 )

While these factors work poorly for current SETI efforts, the reverse case has the converse situation. Under the assumption that humanity is not a product of (still extant) ETI (micro)management, the likelihood of detection by ETI should be proportional to the size of the terrestrial general radiowave light cone (cylinder,surface?) which is now approaching a mean radius of 100 ly. Assuming post-singularity ETIs capability of detecting such cones increases with their (the cones) size and that they (the post-singularity ETI) can detect at the subgalactic level anywhere, then this may be the real singularity that is/was near. (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, physics experimentation could also augment the EM light cone with inadvertent, non-EM signals. (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Last Talk Entries[edit]

Full employment[edit]

Hello--I rolled back some of your recent changes to Full employment. I know you've done a lot to try to clean up the article, I think those might have gone too far, and wound up making it confusing again. It also seems like some POV is slipping in.Cretog8 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. As noted, I restricted my edits to current consensus thinking placing my comments in the talk page. Your edits were arbitrary and mechanical and in fact (ironically) rolled back important standard NPOV explanations. Lycurgus (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It was hard to identify exactly where the problems arose. I rolled back the stuff by your anon IP before I realized you were the same people. After that rollback, it didn't look perfect, but it had addressed some of the problems. For instance, I have trouble reading "the rate of unemployment is the difference from unity of the ratio of units of supply of labour actively seeking employment to the matched units of public or private employment demand." as a common-sense explanation of the rate of unemployment.Cretog8 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And yet in spite of your difficulties, that is precisely what it is. Also, this article is about employment and the maximal case of it at that, not unemployment. (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Marxian theory and mathematical economics[edit]

Eventually I will be able to look up your reference first-hand. However, I'm fairly familiar with mathematical economics, and Marxian value theory has never come up as part of it. So I'm naturally skeptical of the idea that it's "fundamental". If you could provide specific quotes or examples of where it's fundamental, that would help. Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So now the denouement is clear. Mainstream economics is a class dominated by the neoclassical synthesis which in turn implies that it is classically bourgeois in orientation. By class of course I mean an ordinary set. The defining characteristic of the set is failure of its members to either identify with or found a school of their own. It is only a corroboration of their role as petty bourgeois academics or corporate salarymen and it in no way inhibits and in fact re-inforces their compulsion to recognize common-sense and rational (e.g mathematical) statements in their area of expertise. Indeed, the failure to give a proper founding in what is in fact a social science seems to have created an excess of technical/mathematical detail relative to the hard theoretical core common to the hard sciences and generally missing from social science and most pointedly (whence the particular applicability of the term "bourgeois") in this case. (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

19 Harvest, 4706 公元 Thu 20:27:38 EDT

Tim Russert[edit]

Of course, I commiserate with his family, as any decent person would do. I see that the main sentence I composed for the Reaction to Tim Russert's death‎ has been merged into the main article but amusingly with the word "left organ" changed to "liberal organ". Hardly surprising since in the US most view the world thru a "liberal" vs. "conservative" prism. Of course the "Integrity is for paupers" quote isn't going to be added but again hardly surprising. Lycurgus (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also "war and reaction" became "the Bush administration" (as of 2008-06-28). (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non Western Metaphysic[edit]

By this of course I meant (e.g.) the synthetic product of Eastern metaphysic and Game Theory. Lycurgus (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Audience Figure[edit]

Hoax on DYK 2008-07-01?

I translated a DYK article from the German wiki because it did (and still does) seem quite plausible. If it is indeed a hoax, and I certainly won't spend any more time finding out, the user or users there should be punished.

Excerpt from German users talk space that created article.
My translation of it. (The (German) original was disappeared and I didn't have a copy cached*)

I have seen hoaxes before but not ones that made it to the front page (the original German article was on their main page for several hours) .

And if not someone can restore the interwiki link. I would certainly have suspected it had it not been on the main page, but the premis also certainly would not have been beyond Phillip's prerogative as an absolute monarch.
[1], [2], ISBN 3-88199-630-3
I should say the person or persons acting as deletionists should also give some consideration as to whether their powers of judgment are quite up to the demands of such a stance.

Lycurgus (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 1 Heat, 4706 公元 Tue 11:02:08 EDT

Note the relation of this to the story in who the Fuck Is Jackson Pollock?. These are not equivalents because 1) the (fake) controversy is in the "story" not the article in the case of the Pollock work because it's a simple matter of the authenticity of the object and 2) in the case of the Pollock work, I'm clear it is in fact a Pollock. In this case, the issue is much more complicated because there's an assertion P about a set of objects which is more complex than simple provenance. Further P is not logically crisp. P is something like "were these objects ever used as surrogates for Phillip (or alternatively anyone with a similar state function) in any other than a ceremonial way (in the way in which a photograph or portrait of the deceased would be at a funeral)". But the overall approach should be the same. There's also the matter of automation. I'm unclear if it's been verified at this point that some figures still extant have been verified to be mechanical like the monk. It was the forensic art detective in the case of the Pollock who discovered the "smoking gun" there that made the result certain. In this case the only thing that would qualify at that level would be some 16th Century document almost certainly in Spanish. With a more tolerant standard, any attestion that the figures served a state function should do. (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thyra has sent me an image from the page attesting to the contested use of the objects. The text of the original german wiki article is pretty much verbatim from this book and it is unambiguous in its assertion of the use but I don't see any attestation from any secondary sources. Which is not to say they aren't in another part of the book. (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request[edit]

Hi, Lycurgus I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft card picture[edit]

Hello, I have used your picture on the draft dodger article. I was hoping you could look at the caption and make any changes where you see fit. Thank you for the image, seems to be the only one from that period in the Commons. Louis Waweru  Talk  02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no I wasn't a draft dodger/resistor, I didn't need to be. I don't think you're supposed to have personal references in mainspace though, so I will just change your caption to something contextually correct. Lycurgus (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the draft card image, the articles were adjusted (automatically as no text referred to them). (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Queer as Folk[edit]

Why did you add the People Are Funny link to Queer as Folk? There seems to be no reason for it, other than to annoy editors like me... I've removed it, pending an explanation - weebiloobil (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You see reader; need I say more? (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, now... be civil, assume good faith... If you want, you can add to the dismabig page about what the phrase means, but not link to a random TV show from years ago. Please point me towards the "mess" on your user space, and explain how you cannot "contend" it - weebiloobil (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered Question[edit]

So why the choice to edit as an unregistered user? It seems a bit sketchy to me, and although I can't be sure that most others would agree, that seems to be the general consensus among frequent editors. I wanted to chat lightly about a related matter below, so I thought I'd ask. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Hey there. Not sure if the merge was the best idea. I don't know if you recall my input, but I took issue with the fact that none of the history was sourced material, in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the process, it seems the Evangelicalism article has been altered significantly, but not meaningfully, and will require far more cleanup than it did before your merge (presumably done more for structural issues than for content quality). For future reference, it's better to delete bs articles than screw up improving ones in the process of merging them. I'd rather not be overbearing in my opinion, however correct it may be, so let me know what your thoughts are. I'm always willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong. :) --Aepoutre (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


"...over my dead body" is a very inappropriate position to take in the collaborative project that is Wikipedia. Boston (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It was meant as a figure of speech, but let's see if I can give it a more literal meaning. See also my response on the article's talk page. (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comment[edit]

Exuse me, but may I ask who/what this comment was directed to? --pbroks13talk? 07:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

File:RenJuan.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:RenJuan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Bridi da Costa[edit]

I see you tried to remove your comment from the above discussion. Please be advised that now it has been there some time, and has been responded to, it should be kept there. If you wish to retract it, add a reply there saying you withdraw it. You can also use the strike tags - add <s> at the start of what you want to strike through and </s> afterwards - just leave a note saying you did it, to stop people wondering. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FTR - I would have been in favor of deletion if the English Wiki had the same established standard of notability as the German wiki, simply on the basis of consistency and the mainenance of a community established standard, the same grounds for the opposite in (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Economic Theories of Value[edit]

Our informal expectation is that any theory of value (economics) must work in a structure of a well founded and mathematical economics. To the extent that a set of such theories leaves the remainder of the structure unaltered they form a equivalence class, independent of any particular mode of production. Utility and value are fundamentally different concepts however, utility being just one kind of value.

Capital II, p. 137

As the current conjuncture shows, the foibles of capitalism, occurring as they do in the context of accelerating development of human productive capabilities and understanding and the break-down of the regional limitations of said mode of production so crucial to its maintenance on a local basis ultimately creates in an irresistible way a powerful consciousness of its inadequacies as a basis for society. Further, if I understand the current wiki text correctly, the current state of bourgeois, i.e. mainstream economics is that it is in frank admission of its intellectual bankruptcy in the statement that both the so-called exogenous and endogenous theories of growth are contradicted by observation. Bourgeois economics, denying even the possibility of any other basis for society than maximizing M'-M for those controlling the ..., is essentially incapable of addressing fundamental crises resulting from this basing. (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent American Presidential Election[edit]

I realize that this may not be the best place for a such a conversation, but how accurate were charges that the Democratic candidate was advocating socialism through progressive taxation? If it isn't socialism, maybe the article should mention the sort of things which socialism IS NOT. If it was, then it probably belongs in its own article. I was just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the government takeover of the banking industry and the largest insurance company, its evident that some socialist nationalizations are occuring in the US. Clearly socialist policies even if nobody is admitting to it. Then again, one could say that it is part of a broader plan toward privatizing social security by putting the stocks in those companies into the social security trust fund. (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the recent comments on socialism make this the right place and perhaps there will be sufficient discussion for it to merit an article of its own in time. The reversal of policies of the last 30 years don't constitute socialism by any means, especially in the sense I stated above under "Length and Semantics". The proposed taxation is extremely unlikely to return to pre-Reagan era norms² and the bailout of finance capital on its own terms hardly constitutes anything other than government support of the essential institution of capitalism, i.e. banking. The branding of the Obama campaign as socialist is equivalent to branding the candidate a muslim and a terrorist. The irony is that by raising the issue to scrutiny, the distance of the democratic party from the reality of socialism as an essential support of the capitalist order may be made that much clearer. Lycurgus (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not social costs will be paid, but by whom. If the progressive tax rates that were in place in the first half of the post-war period were in effect now with the current level of GDP, the majority would not need to pay any tax at all even given the increased cost of government¹. The incoming administration far from proposing anything of the kind has lead the move to have the cost of the recent finance capital bailout paid for by taxes collected primarily from lower income (than the Finance Capital class) rate payers.
¹ Current or proposed at the time of this writing. ² Actually understates the situation (c.f. rates in the 1950s). (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

McCain's comments tell us more about him than anything about socialism. Go to libertarian or far right websites for an explanation of this world-view. Ironically, American politicians almost never use the word socialist when referring to members of the Socialist International. For example, America's Socialist allies in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Venezuala, Iraq, Haiti, and Pakistan are called "pro-democracy". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The 10 year budget outline released yesterday confirms what I said above. Among its most striking features are: not only continuing the obscene level of DOD spending but actually increasing it, projected deficit spending without end, and a laughable sum allocated for health care. The latter to be paid for by closing a few loopholes on the upper 1% of the income distribution but by no means returning to pre-Reagan era norms. The actual single largest item in the budget is repayment of the national debt, interest payments that on an individual basis, will largely go to that same upper 1%.
(above entry in this thread was written on Friday, 27 February, 2009) Lycurgus (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy reminder[edit]

From WP:Talk : Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal Your text above is a clear breech of that. Try and avoid name calling as well. --Snowded (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How is the charge of and or any underlying currents no matter how twisted of socialism in the largest and most powerful capitalist country not on topic? As I stated in my initial response to the creator(s) of the thread there is no current article on the topic mentioned, one highly relevant to the article, so the back matter of centrally related page is a perfectly appropriate place to discuss one. I see all kinds of crap in the MAIN SPACE of this site on a regular basis and have been very reticent to remove anything there without replacing it with something better. Your attempt to suppress discussion is pitiful. And stop telling me what to do you limey RC asshole. Lycurgus (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
and now insults looks like you are soap boxing as well. --Snowded (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What?? You're incoherent. Insults are insults, soap boxing, as you put it, is not insulting. Is it insulting to observe that you appear to not be very bright/discerning? The point of the (rather mild) insult is that you are not the boss of me or this site. (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sign, I suggest you read the comment on the talk page and respond. It might also be an idea to sign in and be consistent in your signature. --Snowded (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
"Sign"? If you mean the comment on the talk page about keeping the discussion to socialism, as I said I PUT IT THERE. Not suprising that you as s Roman Catholic would show an inability to recognize legitimate exceptions, as one of your countrymen said "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". Precisely the kind of thinking/behavior one would expect of a Roman Catholic. A couple of principles you might keep in mind: 1) when I go to articles on topics that are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from my own, I show forbearance and give way to those invested in that viewpoint after noting any concerns; Your attempt as a Roman Catholic to supress even discussion on the Socialism article just gets my goat; 2) Talk pages are near sacrosanct, nobody has a right to suppress the comments of others without very good cause, which in this case you don't have. (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is tiresome beyond belief. Please read WP:TALK not to mention the header of the talk page itself which makes it very clear that the talk page is not the place for a discussion of the subject. You are proposing no changes or improvements to the article and the comments break the rules. There are plenty of places you can go to discuss political issues. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion group. Nether my religion or my politics have anything to do this. Talk pages by teh way are not sacrosanct, they have a specific purpose. --Snowded (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Also your small-mindedness is no less evident in the matter of IP editing, which is entirely within site policy. And yes, that purpose is discussion. In this case discussion of the topic of socialism, specifically as it was raised in the context of the 2008 US presidential election. (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


WIkipedia policy (and the header of the talk page) make it very clear that the talk page is not place to discuss the subject of socialism, american politics or anything other than the content of the article itself. Please revert and cease misusing the page. --Snowded (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I put it there. The complete thread this jerk is trying suppress, judge for yourself (thread in it's entirety before in the last arkiv) (i am one of the IPs).
"jerk" above and other text I used in the subthreads (archived) was impolitic. Lycurgus (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the notability of the (as of this writing non existent) article, I just googled obama+socialism and it got 4.5 * 106 hits. No less impressive is the general sense of growing awareness of modes of production such as this. Lycurgus (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Although this is more to the point with its conflation of "Free Enterprise" with "Captialism" (my position on this in greater detail on my POV page). (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Noting that my contributions going forward will be to 2. level articles, Socialism itself like most wiki 1st level articles is subject to a tragedy of the commons effect that as I've noted on its talk page, really only affects wiki, doesn't inhibit seekers finding the truth and may serve as a useful barometer of the thinking of the masses. Lycurgus (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Stub. Lycurgus (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An outline/structure of the basis for the material currently disputed on the thread article will be supplied here as needed/events develop. Lycurgus (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Demeaning other people[edit]

There is NO need to demean other wikipedia users who are just trying to help, If you want to be rude, do it on your own time, this is not the first time you have demeaned me. I have yet to see anyone else as RUDE as you. And will you for once stick with one account for editing, and stop using one account to act all precious and another to act a rudely as you can.Frozen4322 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK: precious is a common female name is some parts of Africa? (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, on the contrary, there is a pressing need to demean most people, since it is the first step in helping them out of their demeaned and degraded condition(s), in your case that being of being a neophyte editor. (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about...[edit]

Sorry about being rude... I was wondering why you were *shouting* and being rude at me... --Frozen4322 Talk Stalk Walk 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouting in text is writing in all caps. I don't recall having done that. Lycurgus (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--Frozen4322 Talk Stalk Walk 12:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 :) Lycurgus (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

B6700.jpg license[edit]

Your comment on indicates that you wanted to release the image into the public domain but the license you used does not reflect that. Could you please change either the comment or the license.

Phy1729 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged/Done. Lycurgus (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Phy1729 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning: breach of WP:Civil[edit]

Calling people who edit in good faith trolls as you did in the section Talk:Torture#NPOV template is a breach of WP:CIVIL.-- PBS (talk) (LoA) 21:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No in this case, it's a public service. Also, you seem to be claiming to be an Abuse Filter editor, but your username doesn't appear in the list of same. Lycurgus (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Metasystem transition[edit]

  1. Control of Position: Motion
  2. Control of Motion: Irritability
  3. Control of Irritability: Reflex
  4. Control of Reflex: Association
  5. Control of Association: Thought
  6. Control of Thought: Culture
  7. Control of Culture: Omega Point / Technological Singularity

but the last is OR, so appears here only. Lycurgus (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Goat Star[edit]

Goat Barnstar.png The Goat Star
For contributions to Caprinae Solidarius

Lance Corporal William Windsor salutes you!

 Chzz  ►  22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I ask that you at least give me a chance and not assume I'm driven by some POV agenda. My objections are indeed ground in Wikipedia policy as I've pointed out, and the bit in the edit summary certainly isn't conducive to collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I have yet to do a close examination of the text in question. It's not a high priority but will get to it in next week or so. Lycurgus (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey, if you really want to call me a "stupid asshole", why not do it on my talk page, in English, rather than in quasi-German in an edit summary? (And, come on, over the proper formatting of quotes? That's pretty darn lame.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Lycurgus (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
FTR, don't really know if this editor is, will check later on the matter of fact. Lycurgus (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow!! Now that's intelllectual honesty at work, calling me a "stupid asshole" on my talk page and then scheduling your investigation of whether I'm actually a stupid asshole or not for some unspecified future date. Talk about classy!!! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You are hard to please Ed Fitzgerald. Accept that you are a jerk not an asshole as you state on your user page. Lycurgus (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I wrote "sometimes ... a jerk, but ... not often an asshole" (emphasis added). I do hope your mainspace wiki editing is more accurate. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Dear Mr Lycurgus,

I am GEB11. Please, before removing statements that are based on years of research, do consult the published literature. What I added is not an etymological claim (believe me, I am aware of the Latin origin of the word 'face') but a conceptual one. The Latin term face is, in fact, a direct translation (not transliteration) of prosopon. The point I was trying to make goes beyond the claim that "Obviously every human culture with language would have an expression for the face" and hence is not an 'absurdity'. Such comments seem uncalled for.

The point I was trying to make is intracultural, i.e. it concerns the way in which the boundaries of the face have been established WITHIN the English-speaking World. In fact, the very OED entry you quote shows how complicated it has been to decide what parts of the face should be included in the definition. For example, we have good evidence that since the 14th century the forehead has been included and excluded repeatedly from it! Our work in Cambridge shows that it is only since the 1650s that most dictionary writers decided to define the face in the way that we recognize it nowadays, and that this was influenced not by biological data but by the way in which exegesis of the Biblical concept of Prosopon changed in the transition from the Cromwellian Commonwealth to the English Restoration. It is these historical facts that provide the foundation for my prudent claim that in the English-speaking West the boundaries of the face were determined on 'cultural' rather then 'biological' criteria.

So, all I am asking of you, Sir, is to read up on this issue. If after doing so you still feel sure about your views, might it be possible to seek conceptual arbitration or refereeing from a higher level of WP?

I should also like to add that you are right, and that the reference in question is mine. I included it because is the only one I know that lists the relevant primary literature on the subject. If you know of another work that does that, or if you yourself have published on this subject, please feel free to replace it.

My email is Please feel free to write so that we can reach an amicable conclusion. All we should be aiming for is write an entry on the face that is scholarly and useful to the readers of WP.

Professor G.E. Berrios University of Cambridge, UK

Dear Mr. Berrios,

I am not the arbiter of Wikipedia, just an editor without special privileges here like yourself. The form and, if you like style, of the English Face article was established by editors other than myself. There appears to be a consensus at least from my reading of the history of the article, that less is more here and you may want to look at others in the category to see why some feel this is appropriate. I would suggest that if you can manage to clear the various issues such as WP:OR and WP:COI that you add the content you're referring to to articles under other categories than parts of the human body, such as the Prosopon article, and other cultural categories you reference. Also, you might want to look into Scholarpedia whose content on "Face" currently is dedicated largely to automated recognition. Lycurgus (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

World Government edit summary - Explanation please[edit]

Please explain this edit - [3] - there's no change to the article text, it looks like you're spamming in the edit summary. Exxolon (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in your frame of reference, I am a troll spamming the edit summary. Lycurgus (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery[edit]

Found this sentence in lede:

The term is now most often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups) to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work for a wage.

Changed to:

The term is now most often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups) to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work for the private interests of others in wage labor.

and as of 2009-09-13 was:

The term is now most often used by anti-capitalists (socialists, anarchists, and other groups) to express disapproval of a social class condition where a person feels compelled to work for the private interests of others in wage labor.

So that's how it works when it does and in this case it so far has.

Ω point per Tipler[edit]

Not much of worth SFAICT in the subject but I found The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect entertaining (cf. a writeup by me on it). Lycurgus (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

POV: Why I think world revolution may be possible in the coming decade[edit]

Lenin, supposedly¹ gave 4 conditions which when present lead inevitably to revolution:

  1. The ruling classes are divided.
  2. The middle classes are wavering.
  3. The lower classes have begun to move.
  4. The revolutionary party and leadership are ready to take advantage of the situation.

As Chomsky notes in Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours, there are converging crises stimulating the first three.

I think the 4th is the one that needs change based on the experience of Lenin himself and his product, i.e. Leninism-Stalinism. I don't think any party is needed and that the leadership can generate itself spontaneously from individuals who are informed and act on the basis of that information more or less independently. Socialism is possible in this century and via means now present which were not at the beginning of the last when the conditions were listed. By "Socialism" I mean the realized ideal of scientific socialism as the seventh stage of evolutionary quanta, i.e. control of culture.

In this view, the repeated degeneration of popular revolutions, and the embarrassment of the various Marxist, Social Democratic, Green, etc. parties are attributable to this prior lack of material conditions for self-directed action of the masses. So viewed, the shortcomings of the various sets of individuals in their alleged drive to make society free from the domination of sets of individuals can never be resolved by the introduction of new sets. Rather a new and radical perspective solely based on the individual and the global collective can drive a revolutionary development free of parties, and ideally, leaders.

This is consistent also with classical Marxist thinking and for that matter the dogma of many of the more sophisticated remaining Marxists groups, who while they insist that developments must be lead by the working class, nonetheless push their parties for the role of number 4 above. However, I believe that the advancement of the last 50 years is not as it sometimes appears for nothing and that moves to a change from the current dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to ...

¹ Numerous Marxist orgs quote it, and I seem to recall having read it, but I couldn't locate an original text. In any case I reject the fourth categorically and instead would replace it with a factor that is an (ill-defined) amalgam of present contingencies and the consciousness of society as a whole (the so-called "subjective factor"). It is precisely the revolutionary parties and their leadership that were responsible for the failures of socialism in the last century.


Hi there,

I removed an edit you made at Aryan. I make no judgment on the content of the edit, but please keep the remarks about the editor out of the picture. Comment on the content of the edit, not the editor.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FTR here's the sentence removed from the current last ¶ of the lede discussing the subject in re India:

Recent genetic analysis of the Indian population do support the hypothesis of two genetic strains there, one related to modern Europeans and the other unique to southern India[1]

The edit summary comment was expunged from the history as well, but all I said there (without mentioning the individual by name) was that a person in Germany had told me on IRC he had deleted it. I said German sensibilities should be restricted to That, and a statement that the sentence was a simple and well sourced fact report, which it is, is all that was in the censored comment.

I may have referred to the individual with a disparaging term, but can't tell because there's no recourse for the censoring of the edit summaries unless you take a screen shot or something. Lycurgus (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Basic Law[edit]

(As posted at the Hong Kong discussion page)-- Lycurgus, my copy of the Basic Law says nothing about Beijing expecting that the Hong Kong and Mainland “systems” would have converged by 2047. Rather, it explicitly lays out what Hong Kong SAR cannot do prior to that date. Specifically, (Art. 5) “The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.” Art. 4, on the other hand (which you cite), says nothing at all about 50 years: “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall safeguard the rights and freedoms of the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and of other persons in the Region in accordance with law.” Is yours different? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Response there. Lycurgus (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Fourth International[edit]

Are you intending to archive what you have deleted today? Moonraker2 (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and also put all the threads in their proper order, at least on the current page. In fact the archive page was created in its standard place in talkspace before the edit of the current page was saved. Had you looked you would have seen it. Lycurgus (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought the page's one archive was older but see now it is new. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
np Lycurgus (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence[edit]

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)
5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.
Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.
All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Notification of proposed motion[edit]

This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 04:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a thread below which anticipates this. Lycurgus (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like only to inform you that |article= is deprecated. Now the template will automatically use "article" instead something else is stated. I found this edit using Category:Articles using Multiple issues with deprecated parameters. Happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Lycurgus (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Commodity fetishism[edit]

You once put a lot of work into this article. Recently another editor has made a great many changes. When you have time could you look over it and see what you think? I disagree with the new editor concerning the introduction, but I have not changed it - maybe I am wrong. But it would be good to have other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will be happy to look at it. It may be a few days. Lycurgus (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it - have a happy holiday, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So I did look at it and my impression was that there was a deterioration due to a general lack of capability on the part of the editor who undertook large scale changes. Therefore addressing it would mean addressing that which I would find distasteful. There were also clumsy edits and the like. Had there been an attempt to push an anti-socialist POV it would have been different, but I'd prefer to stay out of a case like this, at least on this article. (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article -- thanks[edit]

Thank you for this edit. Very glad you spotted it. English is my first language. I just chose a very inappropriate word, without any idea why. As I stated in my null edit summary, sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As the boxxen above indicate, I'm mostly a wiki gnome :) Lycurgus (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Arbcom sanctions at Race and intelligence[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Race and intelligence#Final decision.

I am concerned about your edit summary here, where you said 'begin 3RR process'. This statement appears to misunderstand our policy. You are restoring to the article your conclusion that certain authors expound scientific racism, after another editor removed that claim. You need to get consensus on the talk page for any controversial edit to this article. Since your edit summary appears to be declaring an intent to edit war, it will be viewed very dimly. This notification is being logged in the Arbcom case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "concern" has been noted. Here is the state as of my last edit, the link above only shows a diff. That Jensen and Rushton are considered racists, is well attested in Wikipedia and elsewhere and hardly needs reenforcement from me. I don't hold that opinion of Lynn and Vanhannen (though they could be) and my interest in this topic is not, these days, great enough for me to follow up. Didn't at first notice that the Arbcom page was dedicated to just this topic, and restricted to admins, whence my comments there. This has in the past been a topic of greater interest and there's older material on it in my POV pages. (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting under your registered account at Talk:Race and intelligence to explain your recent edit of the article. Since you have now posted both as Lycurgus and as on that talk page, how about adding a note there to clarify that you are the same person? This will help avoid any future puzzlement, and eliminate a concern about WP:SOCK. The latter policy gets more relevant when editing of a contentious article is concerned. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I didn't notice that it had flared into its current state. I barely noticed that it was approaching 100 archive pages without fully registering the import. I have never been banned or otherwise sanctioned and my (IP) talk page as well as many other points link the IP with the named account so I didn't think it was necessary. I have of course had run ins with other editors (such as with OpenFuture on an earlier TWC IP), but most stuff in last year or so has been mistaken identity or the like and I think I've learned how to avoid unpleasantness except where there's a really good fight worth winning and winnable. It's a pretty big space of articles after all. By the time I started editing wiki about 4 years ago, I had already been participating in web site based communities for 6 or 7 years so I was fairly well socialized from the jump. Anyway, I've registered my input so carry on. Lycurgus (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You are declining to take the action I recommended? I had to do detective work to make the connection, and I imagine others would not bother. They think you are two separate editors. I think a filing at SPI ought to be considered, since this is such a high-profile article. It is easy to 'legalize' use of an IP, but you are avoiding doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That's right, I have no further interest in Race and intelligence, except as a spectator. (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

I noticed your edits on the Mental Radio page. I agree with them but you should include Edit summaries with your edits.
Take care. Dave3457 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

William needs you[edit]

Goat Barnstar.png William Windsor needs help!
I am trying to bring the article William Windsor (goat) up to good article status; as you previously helped, I wondered if you might have time to look at it again, and perhaps help improve it. All contributions welcome. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(No, this is not an April Fool thing)

 ChzzBot  ►  17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, busy with other stuff. Lycurgus (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:LycurgusInterWiki.png[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:LycurgusInterWiki.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Lycurgus (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chosen people[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chosen people. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen people. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not, SFAIK, create the subject page, and have little to no interest in it although I think I do have a link to it in this space and may have edited it years ago. Lycurgus (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sun is a Star[edit]

In neither article (as they stand today) do I see any mention of when Man became aware of this fact. Lycurgus (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently c. 2250 ?? in one sense, the late 19th century of the Christian era in another, and just now or not yet in a third. (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Population bottleneck (human)[edit]

Why only h. sapiens and not the other surviving great apes? Lycurgus (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Would presume ATP that it was related to the extended range and greater territorial requirements per animal, which at the time in question at least included all of Africa and vicinity. (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church[edit]

In response to your comment here, date stamping that section of the talk page will cause it to be archived automatically after 15 days. Since it is desirable to maintain that section on the main talk page for ease of reference, I ask that you please remove the date stamp from your comment at the very least so that information is not archived. Thanks.  Cjmclark (Contact) 02:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my concern is for the previous discussions, rather than the list of random sources. This particular article, being both contentious subject matter and edited by a wide range of editors, sees a lot of recycled discussions on the talk page, and it's easier to point someone to the link at the top of the page than to have to dig through all the archives or (worse yet) re-invent the wheel.  Cjmclark (Contact) 02:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, I had a similar situation at Socialism. I accepted and suggest that you do too the normal site and community processing of talk pages. Lycurgus (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use and The Mule[edit]

Since the illustrations are not from the character's original appearance in Astounding, I don't see how you can make even a strained case for fair use in the article; and we must tread very carefully around here on matters of copyright. Those are certainly not "iconic" images of the character for most readers. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They would be the closest thing to. The latter hardback editions had no cover illustrations I can recall and the covers of the serials would 1) be unlikely to be specific to just Asimov's entries and 2) would predate the formation of a cachet for the series which had formed 10-15 years after the original publication. Lycurgus (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Law edit[edit]

Making "problematic edits" based on WP:POV (e.g., "‎restore fact tag on this blatantly POV boosterism for this parasitic profession") is not in keeping with WP:POLICY. I cannot find an exception that would allow this type of edit [4]. Specifically, please look at WP:SOC. --S. Rich (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it this was before you reversed yourself on this. I do have a very strong POV, but fact tagging the blatant puffery and advert in the last sentence of the lede of the article in question is not advancing my POV it's checking that of whoever placed that outrageous lie (mixed with a uncontestable truth about Civil Society in typical fashion). Stop posting here, I told you I'm thru with this, ply your poison at will. Lycurgus (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits in Binary economics[edit]

Apologies if this is inappropriate, but don't know how else to contact you. I am a non-native speaker of English (from ex communist Hungary).

Briefly again, "binary" in Kelso's work does not mean labour/capital opposition. On the contrary, a worker supplements wage income with the earnings of her/his capital, be it directly owned means of production, like my own Heidelberg printing machine or a share in the same machine also owned by someone else.

Janosabel (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not going to argue this matter of supposed authorial intent, finally ramping down my wiki edits. Lycurgus (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Although it is generally acceptable to edit via your username and IP when editing articles, doing so at Afd without explicitly noting that connection (as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness after death (science)) is not a legitimate way to edit while logged out. Please either log in or note the connection in your comment when using your account name and IP address in discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting I did do this. Don't intend to edit the public wiki further so this should be last edit. On the article and AFD, I think it's beyond your capabilities at this time as a community to do the right thing there. There are voices speaking for the correct move, but it's rather pathetic to see how consensus can determine an inferior outcome over such voices. (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The end result here was keep, no consensus as expected. In an aside, this is an issue of paramount importance for intelligent beings everywhere, and I consider the ability to think clearly about this the thing that distinguishes a human being, qua being, from Just An Animal With Language. Don't want to participate here if you can't get this. (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


Metric expansion of space

You wanted to know how Hubble's concerns were resolved. I added a paragraph that explained this. I hope you enjoy it.

Junjunone (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your request for Arbitrtration[edit]

Arbitration is only for prolonged, intractable disputes to be resolved after lesser forms of dispute resolution have failed. It is not for minor squabbles over what is appropriate on a talk page. Also, you appear to be switching back and forth between editing while logged in and editing as an IP. You should only edit under one identity on a page as doing otherwise can create the impression that you are socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll look into those other forms if it comes to that. I don't need your other advice and it's wrong/stupid. IP edits are perfectly legitimate and I'm not concerned how they appear to you, you don't appear to be an admin here. Lycurgus (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I am one of the arbitrators. Please see my comment on the requests for arbitration page with regard to your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have been an admin for over three years, but that is beside the point. Of course editing from an IP is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable about what you are doing is that yo are editing as an IP and as a registered user on the same page, creating the impression of two users when there is only one. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that in a prior arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ), the Arbitration Comittee observed that: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as editing the same article from more than one account, is prohibited. A registered user's editing the same article from the user's registered account and from IP addresses has the same ill-effects as editing from a main and a sockpuppet account, and therefore is also prohibited. The last sentence may be relevant to your situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No ur right, I don't give a shit about this. (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

a heads-up[edit]

I saw you created a list of the contributors to the former article Google Watch. Is there a reason why the Google Watch article, can't be left as a redirect, with the full revision history viewable? If there is a strong reason why the Google Watch article should be left as a redirect, wouldn't it be simpler, and more transparent to have left the history as-is, and to instead have protected the redirect from editing by all but administrators?

The conclusion of the 4th {{afd}} was to create a redirect to Criticism of Google. This decision seems to have been undermined in a non-transparent manner. I see that all links to have been removed from the wikipedia.

Do you know what is going on?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not in fact create any such list. I created the first archive page for Criticisms of Google. Since then there have been a number of gyrations which haven't involved me. I made some comments on the talk page about relevant sources, but that's mostly it (they're either archived or their operatives have removed), the extent of my contribution to that subject and it was some time ago. This thread will be archived with the others in a week. SFAIK, I've had zero edits on anything other than "Criticism of Google" in what you're talking about. (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And FTR the Google Creeps are small potatoes. Why would I waste my time on them when the issue is the capitalist mode of production, next to which their particular deal is just another hypocritical conspiracy claiming social benefit (that it isn't in fact such a conspiracy, isn't "evil", etc.), albeit a highly successful one directed at critical social infrastructure? The saving thing is that being more or less pure IP it hits cultural estoppal at a lot of linguistic and other factual borders. Lycurgus (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of merge templates[edit]

Stop It's fine to disagree with a proposal, and share your opinion on the appropriate talk page, but please don't remove templates while discussion is ongoing, so that other editors have an opportunity to contribute and attempt to reach consensus. Ibadibam (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the only one to comment on your ridiculous proposed merge. Lycurgus (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Curtis Robertson, Jr.[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Curtis Robertson, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I blanked the article on Curtis' request due to some corrections to be made. Will contest this when copy ready as subject is just as notable or more so than many others with similar articles and the fact that it's someone I know doesn't in and of itself constitute any COI. From what I understand even copywriters placing content is acceptable if editing standards are otherwise observed and I don't see a conflict with such standards since the individual is a studio musician roughly as well known as other friends and family that have articles here. Lycurgus (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Axion brand PEMS Unit, Portable Emissions Measurement System.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Axion brand PEMS Unit, Portable Emissions Measurement System.jpg, which you've attributed to Global MRV, Inc.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:B6700.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:B6800-01.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:B6700Word.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:CANDE-01.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe these were properly and hopefully finally processed some years ago. Lycurgus (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Noting I assume the above is done or at least off my desk. Lycurgus (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


For your information: I took offense when you called my edit neurotic as you did in this edit. Sjö (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I use this term in a technical sense. It's also my secondary basic characteristic, and the basis of the conservative mentality, though it's far outweighed by openness in my case. Anyway, you complained about lack of references, stating that there were none but your edit deleted several. On that basis (alone) I reverted your edit under the presumption that it evinced the named trait. Don't have time for this right now, so your reversion of my revert will stand, pending your or someone else's review. Lycurgus (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Also I characterized the edit, I will come back later to find out the matter of fact in the unlikely event an erroneous apperception occurred. Lycurgus (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Hi Lycurgus. I'm all for having a civil discussion about Edward Snowden and his salary. However your last comment was less than productive. Would you mind striking your references to my "reactionary/conservative mind" and my input being "knee-jerk?" The former is laughable and insulting to those who truly are "reactionary/conservative" (remember that even reactionaries and conservatives are welcome to participate here), and I assure you that my comments were made with my head and my fingers and not with either of my knees. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do mind. This thread will shortly be archived. I don't consider objective reporting of observed facts to be insulting. The actual description of small minded and petty editors who obsess on gaming the rules and policies here would be more complicated but the text I used is a concise and accurate approximation of the observed facts which no doubt a review of your long involvement would show. A very large segment, but fortunately not an absolute majority of the people in what I assume is our common country/region share this personality type, so I'm sorry if you consider it insulting. To me, it is what it is. It's not a complement but it's not an insult either. Just as, if you were fat, and I said you were fat, that would not be an insult, it would be an objective report. Lycurgus (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Niagara Falls, New York[edit]

Do you plan to fix the sloppy edit, or just revert mine? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a dick. As others have noted it's people like you that make this an unpleasant place. You knew there was nothing wrong with the edits but from whatever your problem is you proceeded on this tack. I will take this as far as I need to, and at my leisure. (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
And having lived here for a dozen years, I can assure you that Love Canal is not now and never was a neighborhood. You have covered your display of an apparent personality problem with busy work to make up for the egregious behaviour. Think about your life. The fact that it appears on Google maps as Love Canal, merely locates a well known feature. It only became known as Love Canal retrospectively after the disaster, the Canal was forgotten after the original project was dropped. (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, so Love Canal says it's a neighborhood, which is only true in a loose sense, the area around the disastrous land fill, not unlike the mathematical use. This casual use of the term is distinct from what is appropriate in the use of neighborhood as a partition of a town or city into distinct regions. Reiterating there is not now and never was a Love Canal neighborhood as such, but OK with the article as it stood a few minutes ago when I looked at it. (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I'm OK with this. My requirement that the set of neighborhoods of a town or city be a distinctly partitioned cover is too strong. There's also no Falls neighborhood as such and yet these are two main known things in the town. Also looked at a map of the neighborhoods of Manhattan and there were overlapping regions. Local and visitor senses of the term differ, and my requirement for precision was too narrow. However, it's still the case that there's only a Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, NY in the same sense as there's a Jeffrey Dahmer house neighborhood of Milwaukee. (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)