User talk:Bacchiad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Osiris-Dionysus 2 Pythagoras/Pentagram 3 Speedy Delete 4 "In Greek mythology" 5 Mythology taxobox 6 Suggestion for formatting taxoboxes 6.1 More boxes 7 Incomplete line in Muse 8 Sympson the Joiner 9 Ceqli 10 Article Licensing 11 Greek sea gods 12 Hi 13 Out of interest 14 Just a question really 15 Alien language 16 Hera 17 Leucothea 18 Wiki Classical Dictionary 19 Comunleng 20 Rosicrucian article 21 Mithraism 22 Image copyright problem with Image:Zeus_and_eagle.gif 23 Request for edit summary 24 Freudo-marxism and historical revisionism (negationism) 25 Looking for articles to work on? 26 Hercle 27 meme 28 Anarchism 29 Libertarian socialism. 30 Heads Up 31 Anarcho-capitalism as featured article 32 psychoanalysis 33 Regarding the Template:Greek myth (Hades)

[edit] Osiris-Dionysus

I have added two authors who make the Osiris-Dionysus-Attis-etc. connection to Osiris-Dionysus. Both from the 1st century BC.

I have also NPOV'd The Jesus Mysteries appropriately, and added a few counter quotes to the "critics say", which I note didn't actually specify which critics, i.e. was just as bad as the "some think that they are forms of Osiris-Dionysus".

CheeseDreams 22:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagoras/Pentagram

You keep annotating a link on the wiki-site about Pythagoras as a "modern contemporary occult interpretation". I feel that is not quite true. I assume you've read the link - It uses only ancient sources and archeological finds. Calling it "modern" is very misleading. It gives you the impression that "this link is only loosely connected to ancient Pythagoreanism". Why don't you annotate the other links as "modern contemporary interpretations"? I've visited those links as well, and they present little or no sources and hard evidence for what they say. In other words: they are less historical in their approach. ~August

It's the interpretation that's modern, not the sources. And hey, at least I'm not deleting it; I'm your friend here, August. If you'd like to annotate the other ones as well, be my guest. Bacchiad 14:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uhmm, okey. =) I might well be to quick on the defensive. Some masons tried to put the info in that article down, masons that happend to be driving forces behind those two other links on the Pythagoras-page! Soo ... I tend to be suspicious. Almost every single page on the internet that claims to deal with Pythagoreanism presents the pentagram as one point up and says it is an ancient sign for four elements plus spirit. That doctrine has nothing that backs it up, and as you can see on the coins niether does their direction of the pentagram as one point up. ~August

[edit] Speedy Delete

In the future, to ask a page speedy deleted, tag it with {{delete}}. Thanks! - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Bacchiad 23:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "In Greek mythology"

In case it's not obvious, "In Greek mythology" is just a stock phrase we use to set context. As an encyclopedia of everything, it's very often the case that people connect via unexpected routes, for instance from obscure beetle genera that happen to have mythological names. It is possible to set context in other ways, but the "In XXX" gets you there with the fewest words, so it's hard to beat for reader efficiency, which is what you want in a reference work. Stan 07:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It does make navigation easier. I've started using it myself. Bacchiad 02:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, do you know anything about the Bacchidae rulers themselves, or did you just like the name? I've written about Cypselus and Periander but we don't have an article about the dynasty... Adam Bishop 23:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I might be able to whip one up. As I recall, there was a story about how the last Bacchiad settled in Etruscan territory and set up a pottery studio.  ;) - Bacchiad 23:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology taxobox

"Sinners" is a specific genre that shouldn't be applied to these impious characters. (BTW, proud to make your very short A-list, in spite of my crabbiness and Greek illiteracy... ) Wetman 23:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other one I thought of was "Inmates:". Bacchiad 23:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey you building those mythology taxonomy boxes? If you are, my compliments; they look really cool. LMK if you'd like any input. Just out of curiosity, you ever read Friedrich Nietzsche's Birth of a Tragedy? --DanielCD 01:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for formatting taxoboxes

Hey, I noticed that you were removing some of the taxoboxes you earlier created in Greek myth. Unfortunately, you're doing this just as I'm working on a way to improve them. Check out User:Didactohedron/Greek myth. It's a three-tiered tree, of sorts; you should be able to figure it out. Right now I'm making taxoboxes just for the "gods" category; I'll get to the others later. I was planning on making all of the necessary changes to the actual boxes in the template namespace when I was finished making all of the boxes on my own page. Tell me what you think. - Didactohedron 17:35, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Now that is some interesting stuff, sir. The extra tier is the really cool part. Also, don't worry too much about the deletions. I probably should have kept abstractions, but the god-specific ones were teh sux. Bacchiad 17:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't suppose you still have them hidden away somewhere, though? Anything I could use to fill out the Gods category would be useful. At the moment, I've finished expanding that category for the time being, but it looks oddly biased towards particular "themed" gods. It seems to me as if the sections could be organized better, too. If you're still interested in the project, you're welcome to help me recategorize the "Gods" category, and fill out "Mortals" and "Sources" (I think I'm done with "Places"), if you like; you can do it on the page I made. - Didactohedron 18:14, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

You appear to have grabbed all the abstractions before the conflagration, so that's good. The stuff in Apollo was:

• Muses
• Hyperborea
• Leto
• Delphi
• Marsyas
• Hyacinthus

Dionysus had:

• maenads
• satyrs
• silenus
• Korybantes
• Lycurgus (Thrace)
• Lenaia
• Dionysia

Pan had:

• Arcadia
• Midas
• Priapus
• Lycaon

I was basically just throwing in anything related to them I could think of, because I like them.

[edit] More boxes

Have you thought about making a greater "world mythology" taxonomy tree? How about some of the mythical animals, like Pegasus and Hyppocampus? I think the taxonomy can improve as more people look at it. There's a book available that has the genealogy of the gods worked out: A Genealogical Chart of Greek Mythology by Harold Newman [1]. It's pricy, might see if a library has it if you're interested. --DanielCD 20:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My current thinking on boxes is that small is beautiful, both for the boxes themselves and for the hierarchies that underlie them. I think this makes sense from the point of view of both theory and presentation. Hence I like Template:Roman myth (small topic), Template:Greek myth (Olympian) and Template Greek myth (sea) (small sub-topics). Where a category is relatively discrete, link together articles and link back to the parent topics(s). Where it's not, do not harm. E.g. Should Minos go under "Theseus and the Minotaur Cycle", "Hades" (as a judge), "Early Greek Lawgivers", "Myths of Crete"? Big hierarchies break down: they make sense for small and natural groupings (e.g. the 13-15 Twelve Olympians) but they become nonsense when taken too far. I might try to flesh that out when I come down from this godawful caffeine high, but that's the thrust of my thinking.

In sum, let's make it easy on ourselves. Make the most obvious and easy-to-implement kinds of useful comparison possible (you suggested mythical monsters, which I think is a good idea) rather than building trees for their own sake. When we've played around in the sandbox a little we can evaluate the next step. So far I've got one negative comment on the box ("useless clutter") so we should be careful to grow them slowly and sensibly.

On the genealogy of the Greek gods book: I have to see it. Studying myth is pretty much useless without studying variants; and there are a lot of variants with Greece. It also matters where those variants come from. I'd have to see how it handles this, but my first reaction is extreme skepticism. -- Bacchiad 21:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of monsters: See User:Didactohedron/Greek myth#Creatures. I changed the fourth category in my reworked Greek taxobox tree from "sources" to "creatures", and made individual taxoboxes for several categories.

You (Bacchiad) suggest going easy on tree-growing for its own sake; do you think that the way I've reworked the taxoboxes is useful? I'm definately going for a three-tiered tree structure, in order to make it as easy as possible for someone to get from one topic in Greek mythology to another without having a box containing every single topic on every single page. I was going to finish making the reworked taxoboxes on my page, and then implementing them on the real article pages, but I'm now having doubts. To make a good "tree" which would encompass the whole of Greek mythology, I'd have to answer a lot of daunting questions: What subjects are important enough to get their own boxes? Where do I put people associated with all sorts of myths (like Minos)? What happens to people like Heracles who are as important as anyone in the Trojan War, yet don't fit well into any nice category - should there be an "Other heroes" taxobox, or should "Heracles" appear alongside "Trojan War" in the second "teir" of the tree?

More importantly, if we did make a tree which perfectly captures the entirety of Greek myth as it is generally perceived- that is, the "consensus" mythology usually found in popularizations of Greek myths that don't go straight to the primary sources- would this be an aid or a hindrance to understanding? In the former case, I'd be willing to tackle the challenge involved in creating such a tree. The biggest question involved, IMHO, is whether the benefits of having a taxobox tree that lets users easily find whatever Greek mythological subject they might be interested in outweighs the disadvantage of having the tree reinforce the idea, which you rightfully deride, that Greek mythology is a monolithic body of stories, rather than a varied collection of often contradictory tales. -Didactohedron 01:26, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Gods fit into discrete categories better than heroes. E.g. Orpheus is an Argonaut but he also has the whole Eurydice thing, not to mention being a legendary seer. The gods have a few overlaps, (Poseidon:sea and Olympian, Mnemosyne Titan and abstraction, etc.) but those are corner cases. I think a two-tiered version of your (really nicely designed) improved boxes can be deployed immediately for gods.

For creatures, I haven't devoted a lot of thought to them.

For places, I think Hades is the only one that the poets described in detail, except maybe for Hyperborea.

For heroes. I'm stumped for something unified. There are a couple of ad hoc things we could do, though, like "Twelve Labors of Heracles", "The House of Atreus" and "Trouble in Thebes". Bacchiad 02:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete line in Muse

Hi, please complete a partial line added by you in Muse. See Talk:Muse for more. Jay 21:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sympson the Joiner

1. Sympson the Joiner survived VfD with two Del votes (including the nomination to VfD), three explicit Keep votes, and two arguable implicit Keeps (via mentions of Cleanup).
2. In accord with the WP:CU referral you advocated, it
   1. went on,
   2. got a one-word M(inor) edit after 18 minutes, and
   3. was kicked off by one editor after 14 hours, with summary "nothing more is likely to turn up".
3. Your comment at Talk:Sympson the Joiner#Should this be Merged? would assist me in determining what next.

--Jerzy(t) 04:27, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I hope my additions have saved Sympson the Joiner. If not, the material should be divided between Joiner (craftsman) and Bookcase don't you think? I owe you for the complete rehabilitations you've effected at Greek mythology and Roman mythology and elsewhere. Wetman 04:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, o you best of those who are sodden: Sympson the joiner looks outstanding. I've been away from the 'pedia for a while, but nevertheless blush at your assessment of my sporadic efforts.

Bacchiad 05:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ceqli

We know you supported the Ceqli language. Help us save it by voting to undelete -- it's now up at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Thanks! 24.4.127.164 02:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Greek sea gods

What happened to you? Temporary insanity I hope! Your myth editing has always seemed so sensible. I try not to get possessive about my fine wording and all, but these are very commonplace middle-of-the-road interpretations... Come see the issues at Talk:Greek sea gods. --Wetman 09:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your new edits set me thinking. We do have to mention the Thera explosion in this context, even simply to say we can't assess it: vet my text. And I think that the difference between archaic dangers of sea travel and classical and medieval ones are less technological and historical than connected to human dangers like piracy. See my changes. --Wetman 23:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I liked the first sentence of your addition. I think it brings out much more strongly just exactly how much more anxiety-ridden sea-travel would have been.

On the second sentence, I'm not sure I would have pushed Thera specifically as strongly (I find it unlikely to have been remembered into classical times), but tsunamis did happen in the classical Mediterranean, so it does deserve some mention. I may muck around with the placement and/or phrasing a little later, but I'll leave it alone for now. Thanks — Bacchiad 00:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, tsunamis are not remembered: the myth and apotropaic ritual that they engender may survive for so long that new explanations for them eventually need to be found. And new perceptions of the wrath of gods may become part of the nature of those gods. I figure there must have been some serious adjustments after the explosion.

The reason I doubt Thera was a big deal for the historical is because there were town-destroying tsunamis within living memory. It's in Plutarch or Athenaeus somewhere. Someone forgot to sing the right hymn or something, and then whammo, the whole town's gone. I'll look it up when I get a chance.

Now I've done some expanding at Naiads, even crediting Robert Graves! I hope you'll be stimulated to edit. --Wetman 03:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read The White Goddess over the past couple weeks. I have to say that out of flaky pop-universalizing-mythology books, it's by far my favorite. Say what you will about his historical methods, but at least Graves pays attention to all-importance of the poetic form in which myth properly comes. That's more than you can say of many academically respectable scholars. (Burkert among them ;). Bacchiad 05:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the thing that gets me about Graves' approach to Greek myth. It's not calling Heracles an oak-king, or Kronos a raven-god and saying that every oak- or raven-related figure is ipso facto identical. That's the kind of small time thing that one can let slide. What gets me - and here, I have to add, Graves was following the scholarly consensus of his day - is the idea that "chthonian religion" was some kind of old, weak and helpless thing constantly marginalized and put-upon by "Olympian religion".

I don't buy it. First off, the Greeks usually went to almost comically extreme lengths to conserve old cults. If they showed up somewhere and found an old grove of a tree-nymph, they didn't say, "hey, let's bulldoze it and put up a temple of Zeus!" Sure, they'd put a big shiny temple of Zeus next door to it. But you can bet that they offered the nymph a sacrifice every time before they offered Zeus one.

Like take Athena and Erechtheus on the acropolis in Athens. Okay, so Athena's an Olympian and yes, she has the bigger temple. But Erectheus - who was half snake and may have engaged in human sacrifice (how's that for pre-Olympian) - got the lion's share of the sacrifices, if archaeology is anything to go on. In the fifth century, the Athenians decided there just wasn't enough chthonic action going on on the Acropolis. So they set up a grotto to Pan and the nymphs, and a hero-shrine to Ion.

You pretty much couldn't have an altar to an Olympian without a chthonic shrine right nearby to back it up. The Olympian gods didn't smother the chthonic gods - they held onto them for dear life. Moreover, all of the real innovators in Greek religion - the Orphic poets, Pythagoras, the oracle-mongers, etc. - were busying themselves with (and even inventing) chthonic cults. The Olympian gods were the most hidebound, sclerotic and anemic part of Greek religion. Chthonic cults were constantly innovating and full of vitality.

Okay, enough ranting. Sleep now.  ;) Bacchiad 06:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I am interested in having a Wikipedian Classicists club. A Place where we can meet and talk and share things and common support. A list of people who are Classicists. I think it would be a great idea.WHEELER 01:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also started a category called Classical studies. Can you add all your categories to that it would be very helpful. ThanksWHEELER 01:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Out of interest

Ever read The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. I just did the White Goddess last week. That puts me over my flaky scholarship limit for the next month or two. Does Hislop make the sought-after equation between Osiris/Dionysus and Attis, Adonis, Aion, Mithra(s), etc? Bacchiad 05:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yep. That's what CheeseDreams is pushing. Just figure you should know. See Historicity of Jesus. I've read almost half of his material. The central thesis of the piece is that Rome is the "new Babylon" of Revelation. Many people think its flaky. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question really

1. You disappeared when CheeseDreams was most active [2]
2. You had knowledge about CheeseDreams' RfAr
3. You asked CheeseDreams to edit an article
4. You asked Grunt to ban CheeseDreams for doing so

I didn't ask you to revert my first edit. I didn't ask you to muck around in The Jesus Mysteries. Bacchiad 06:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, whose sock puppet are you? CheeseDreams 00:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.s. I can see what your POV editing is about - [3]

It's true. I'm a Mithraic and/or Zoroastrian fundamentalist. Bacchiad 06:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That edit doesn't look like you are pushing that POV, more like a Christian POV pusher to me. CheeseDreams 04:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(copying to CheeseDreams talk page) This is the second time I've seen you imply that someone is a sockpuppet. The first time you did it for me. I count this as harassment. Will you please stop? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No.

[edit] Alien language

Very nice save on alien language! I changed my vote but I suggest you save the source of the page in case not enough people follow suit, and then you can just re-post it and I highly doubt anyone will object. — Ливай | ☺ 20:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hera

A tweak or two at Hera have snowballed. I hope none of it is "original research" for it's all come out of books, somewhere... --Wetman 05:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like it. The only change I've made it to rework the Wetman-trademark "long introduction" into a Bacchiad-trademark "lots of little headings". Nice work. Bacchiad 16:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inspired by Bacchiad's tweaks, more details and some References have been added. Was I right to can the Crow? Does the Bacchiad know about the festivals of the Daedala and Greater Daedala: was the Hera connection applied to an old festival, or was she inherent? We need more details of the Heraia too. An article on its own as the redlink suggests seems over-ambitious at this point: a subsection paragraph perhaps?--Wetman 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hafta confess that Hera isn't my specialty. Bacchiad 15:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leucothea

I've done a merge and added some references and some basic details. Shouldn't this goddess be in cluded in the Marine deities template? --Wetman 22:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Classical Dictionary

Hey. I saw your myth interests. I'm writing to send you a link to my edition of Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology [4], a 3,700-page 19c. classic. I think you'll find it useful in your myth entries, particularly for citation.

You might also want to check out my Wiki Classical Dictionary. I'm not having much success getting Wikipedians interested in it. But, perhaps it might appeal to you. Happy wiki-editing! Lectiodifficilior 02:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comunleng

Arrghhh! People are voting to delete Comunleng! Yes, Comunleng! Come and save it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Comunleng 24.4.127.164 11:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have voted keep on this article. Could you please therefore provide some external sources that aren't other Wikipedias (as these neither have external sources) to show that this isn't just Original Research that has been translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article Comunleng. As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments. The Literate Engineer 01:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosicrucian article

Dear user Bacchiad, as I have seen editions of yours at the article Rosicrucian, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mithraism

Hey, long time no see. Do you know anything about Mithraism. I uploaded a picture of a tauroctany statue from the Hall of Animals in the Vatican Museums to this page. It has Mithras facing the bull, though, instead of away. Do you know anything about this aspect of the symbolism? Just curious; I know you love mythology-related items.

There's also some comments I left on Wetman's talk page about it. --DanielCD 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Zeus_and_eagle.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Zeus_and_eagle.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright deez. Bacchiad 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 29% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Summarize deez. Bacchiad 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of good things that bots can be used for. Why are you sicing yours on fellow editors? I don't like the culture of surveillance and conformity that you are promoting. Bacchiad 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But conformity is not always bad. The absolute majority of people on Wikipedia coform, in the sence that the are not vandals, talk nicely to others, and in general, not surprisingly, all have the same desire, to make Wikipedia, and maybe the world a better place.

Edit summaries are a good thing; they may be a burden to you, but help your fellow editors understand what you are up to (and that does matter). Besides, my bot contacts just a tiny fraction of Wikipedia editors, and never anybody more than once. But I do appreciate your comment. You can reply here if you would like to comment further, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are good. A culture of surveillance and obnoxious (despite disclaimers) talk page messages are not. Bacchiad 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about obnoxious messages (not much can be done about that), but not about surveillance. On Wikipedia you are under constant surveillance at all times, and if anything, that's a good thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freudo-marxism and historical revisionism (negationism)

Hi! good idea! I added Deleuze's critique. Maybe we could date more precisely the movement in the intro (60's? or better 50-70's? - I think 60's would be more appropriate, although Marcuse wrote his book in 1955, it goes around better with the social movements and it always take a few years for a book to take-off...). On a completely different topic, I'm having a hard-time with one (yes, only one) user on the historical revisionism (negationism) page. When I first looked at the page it was almost empty, and I thought Wikipedia definitely needed to take a clear stance on this kind of revisionism, lest it become a platform for them. So I added little by little subsections; each one have been fought by the other user. Right now, he insist on deleting the Rwandan Genocide and the Srebrenica massacre examples, claiming they are "not representative enough" or whatever... Maybe you'll want to have a look -- I'm probably going to put a Request for Arbitration, since if I revert it he will revert it thirty minutes later. Lapaz 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Bacchiad. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hercle

Hercules is known to be borrowed from Etruscan Hercle and not directly from Greek Herakles because:

1. We have early documentary evidence of the Etruscan form of the name, from mirrors and other art objects produced by the Etruscans. The development from the Greek seen in the form Hercle is consistent with other syncope seen in Etruscan versions of Greek names, e.g. Menelaos → Menle, Apollo → Aplu, Achilleus → Achle, Klutaimestra → Clutmsta.
2. At the date these objects were produced, the peoples of Latium had close and continuous contact with the Etruscans but not with the Greeks (the closest of whom lived in southern Italy, while the Latin-speakers were confined to a small area around Rome).
3. We know that the Latin-speakers were aware of the Etruscan form of the name and used it in oaths (e.g. hercle, mehercle).
4. The form of the name Hercules is easily explained by the Latin habit of inserting a vowel between a consonant and a following liquid or nasal in Etruscan loanwords, e.g. Arnth → Arruns, Menrva → Minerva. It is, however, inconsistent with the typical Latin handling of words borrowed from Greek.
5. I didn't make this up: see here.

[edit] meme

Hi. please use more xtensive edit summaries in your edits. it makes it easier to keep track when changes are made and less vunreable to reverts. thanks --Procrastinating@^talk2me 08:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism

Nice edits.. revert back if you want to keep it that way. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bacchiad 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind if I reverted the page back to this state? You, WickedWanda and I are the only ones who have edited since then, and WickedWanda is a sock of a banned user anyway. The Ungovernable Force 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All good to me. Bacchiad 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on anarchism. As one of the anarcho-cap editors myself, I recognize that you aren't 'one of us,' and that makes it impressive to me the way you were able to give a succinct and fair statement of what our views are and what we think of the leading figures -- the two Friedmans, Rothbard, etc. -- whose writings have helped form them. Classic case of devil's advocacy for the sake of NPOV. Thanks. --Christofurio 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian socialism.

Wonderful. That's like the greatest compromise I've seen in a long time :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up

Hey, just so you know, any edits by User:Beeboe can be reverted without any discussion since they are a sockpuppet of User:Hogeye, a blocked user. You don't have to worry about 3RR in that case (just say in you're edit summary that they are a sock of a blocked user). Just thought you might like to know. The Ungovernable Force 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-capitalism as featured article

I have posted the anarcho-capitalism article to undergo a major review due to my belief that it is not up to the standards of being the best wikipedia has to offer. If you are interested in participating in the process please do. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 11:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clean-up the quick entry I fired off regarding the Courtroom Workgroup. I understand your deletion of the words leading sentences for readability, but since the courtroom workgroup article is as much an explanation of the academic theory as explication of the theory's content. Barring any negative comment, I plan to add the cannonical concepts back to the article (in a more readable format).

[edit] psychoanalysis

I noticed that you deleted major sections of the psychoanalysis article, including the adaptations to culture and managed care. Many portions of this is not covered in the article, including play therapy. Please take the time to make the information flow with the article rather than just hacking off entire sections.whicky1978 ^talk 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Template:Greek myth (Hades)

Is there a better word than "famous inmates"? I think the "inmates" part is too colloquial. bibliomaniac15 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)