User talk:Thanatosimii/Archive 3

Re: Email address?

Thanatosimii, do you have an email address? Contact me thru the "E-mail this user" option on my home page; there is something I need your help with, & I'd like to discuss it offline. -- llywrch 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I received your email. I sent you a response which I hope demystifies everything. -- llywrch 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahmose I Mummy Head for FA?

Any chance the chosen image of the mummy head could be replaced by that of Ahmose's shawabti for the FA submission? It just seems a particularly gruesome thing to be greeted with on the front page of Wikipedia. (For a similar reason I have not added the mummy head of Tao II to the pharaoh infobox either).

Also, given what I am planning on adding to the article about the mummy -- essentially contesting that it may not be Ahmose -- the shawabti at least is probably a better likeness.

Cheers! Captmondo 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Got your reply, and I understand the situation. I have updated the section on the mummy based on the Forbes' piece, which casts some doubt that the mummy is who it is said to be. Ironic that the purported mummy of Ahmose I now rests in the same place as the equally dubious mummy of Ramesses I (that argument pretty much nailed down to my mind in the most recent issue of KMT).

So where do we stand on the Thutmose III article? You have beefed things up considerably in terms of overall content, and I have hammered down the last of the needed citations/references, and been able to source a few more pics. (Which reminds me, I have made an effort to clean things up and source some other potential pics for the article, which can be found at Wikimedia Commons at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thutmosis_III). I would like to further expand the section on the tomb, mention the "botanical garden" reliefs at Karnak in terms of art from his time, and am looking into coming up with a map of Karnak highlighting the sections that he established. I still think it would be a good idea to go into the co-regenecy with his successor, but other than that I think this article is coming together nicely, and Good Article/Feature Article submission is not far off.

Cheers! Captmondo 11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The new biography you mention certainly sounds interesting, though too rich for me to readily add to my personal library anytime soon. I also note that the professor who wrote this does have a Web page and his email address is mentioned on it -- interested in giving him a ping to look over what has been done on that article and make suggestions?

I have also decided to pull in my horns a bit when it comes to coming up with an SVG version of Karnak -- once I delved into it I realized that it is a huge project. I've done a lot of technical illustrations, but doing this right would probably take a solid month's work. Instead I am working on a top-down view of the Thutmose III's tomb layout. Ultimately derived from the online Theban project, but in the end it is it not the only source and consequently should qualify under GDFL. No timeline on when I will get that done, but beforehand month's end at the outside.

Business keeps me traveling, and it turns out that the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum resides in San Jose, which is where I will be early next month. I won't go into my opinions on the validity of the Rosicrucian belief system here, but suffice to say that their artifact collection seems substantial, and I will bring camera in hand.

I also like your idea about posting what reference works each of us has to draw upon, though I can only see that happening on an individual's user page. I have never seen an equivalent page for a project on Wikipedia, but perhaps that's because no-one has asked.

Cheers! Captmondo 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Back To Jerusalem

Thanks for your edits to this article/stub. It looks much better than when I first happened on it, and the references help greatly. --Pastordavid 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Ancient Egyptian bibliography

I seem to remember that you asked for individuals from the Ancient Egyptian group on Wikipedia to list their personal bibliographies -- in other words, what they had in their own personal library and what they have access to. I've finished my own list, which can be seen here. I also have the past few year's editions of KMT. I also have a scanner. ;-) Cheers! Captmondo 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Hieroglyphs

Hi Thanatosimii

I sayed that I would drop a a line on you discussion-page here in the en-wp. Well: I've tried the chat and the mailing-list, but didn't really get any usefull answers (or similar), maybe I just tried in the wrong moment... anyway. So I tried to find out, how the piece of software works etc. and I was successful (It's very simple, but a developer has to do that...). I think I/we probably would get some usefull feedback, if we already had some Hieroglyphs and their corresponding "Gardiner-Name". Do you have some useful images, which should be added? greetings--Kajk 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the developer who actually develped and (as far as I know) also maintaince the extension: fr:Utilisateur:Aoineko greetings--Kajk 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been looing into this, and it is possible to add in new 'prefabs' as they are called, simply by drawing the new tile and adding to the script. So that can be rendered as , etc. I have tried with on a private mediawiki installation and it is quite simple. I will try and get hold of fr:Utilisateur:Aoineko and get it added if possible. Are there others that need to be added Markh 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I get your reply

You like Wikipedia to be with images and not dull and boring. Images related to the pages and articles. You would've have removed as you did with other edits I made that you didnt agree upon. So please respond, so this person understands that you agree. Ararat arev 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you also notice that Dbachmann reverted his wrong "copyvio" that I had got approval from User:Jkelly the admin who handles copyright images. He removed it and put the "copyvio" message. And Dbachmann later explained to him that was wrong and the tag is ok. Ararat arev 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let the guy have his say in this before changing it. Sheesh. Ararat arev 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also why dont you yourself compare the 2 pages and see for yourself what I mean. Im just giving you good advice. If you want take it. Ararat arev 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you dont want to make the pages look good, its actually not up to you. Ararat arev 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know i reported Ararat for his disruptive edits i asked him nicely a thousand times it seems if he gets blocked he calms down. For the 3RR. Nareklm 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah exactly what i was thinking, i think its going to be 48 hours this time i also warned him about the 3RR he removed my message. Hopefully next time he will be more cautious with his edits. Nareklm 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked!! Hooray! lol :-) Nareklm 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Amenhotep I

Thanks for letting me know about the peer review request for this article. Will take a look at it and let you know what holes I find (if any). Will add them to the article's discussion page.

Out of the blue I have the opportunity to make a business trip to New York City at the end of the month. Don't know how much spare time I will have to visit other places while there, but am hoping to make it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and possibly the Brooklyn Museum. Will bring camera in hand and take pics, if allowed.

One thing that may possibly interest you: a photogallery of the recent pics I took of the Egyptian Gallery at the Royal Ontario Museum [1]. Not on par with the museum in Berlin (or those in New York) but there may be something of use to you there.

Cheers! Captmondo 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In my University days in the mid-1990's, we followed the kind of academic citations you mentioned with the added op cit for footnotes on occasions. But its just a matter of taste, frankly. Nothing important here really on the references/footnotes. Leoboudv 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Babylon

Hi, two sources on Babylon's etymology

David G. Burke "Babel, Tower of" The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible. Ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

The cuneiform digital library initative wiki on Babylon [2].

Of course, both notes that Bab-ilu (gate of god) might not be the original etymology. Probably not a strong enough statement for being called a reliable source.

I won't be reverting to the fake etymology version unless I find better sources. The only thing which is clearly wrong right now is the "translating Sumerian". Otherwise the present form of the article is fine, since it does not state that Bab-ilu is the etymology of Babylon (contrary to the article on the Tower of Babel).

I am having a similar discussion/argument with Codex Sinaiticus on the Tower of Babel Talk page, and I feel like I am starting to be a dick. On top of that this is not very important, because it is certain that Babylonians (at least Neo-Babylonians) understood Babilu as meaning gate of gods.

Thanks

USferdinand 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramesses IV

Dear Thomas, Hope I am not contacting you at a bad time. You know I have always treated you with the greatest of respect. Captmondo's recent pictures look good indeed. Anyhow, I am contacting you about Ramesses IV. I have made many recent additions to this pharaoh under my 24.87 account with the usual scholarly footnotes. It helps that I have some University training here since many people make additions but never cite the specific sources for their claims. ie: Its unverifiable and can be a problem on Wikipedia. Do you know who created the neat Pharaoh info-boxes for the other New Kingdom kings? No such pharaoh infobox exists for Ramesses IV but if there was any 20th dynasty king who deserved such a 'special treatment', it might be this king because of his numerous projects. Ramesses IV may have died after a reign of only 6.5 years but he left behind such a wealth of material and information that AJ Peden managed to print a biography on this ruler in 1994 which is unusual for the post-Ramesses III New Kingdom kings. Leoboudv 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for the creation of the pharaoh info box on Ramesses IV by Markh. Its a good start. Leoboudv 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the addition. Leoboudv 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thutmose IV

The kind of sources I have on Thutmose IV are the standard ones by Nicolas Grimal, the Oxford History on Ancient Egypt plus Bryan's biography which is fundamental for understanding this king's reign. There hasn't been any major changes in interpretation on this king since Bryan's 1991 book came out. Except for Peter Clayton's Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs, pretty much all scholars including J. Von Beckerath's Chronologie of the Egyptian Pharaohs give him a 10 year reign--by rounding up Josephus' figures of 9 Yrs & 8 Months to 10 yrs. (I don't know if Clayton is a scholar or a writer; I have not seen him write any articles in major periodicals) I can only tell you that many scholars view Thutmose's Dream Stela as pure propaganda to cover up the fact that he likely murdered his elder brother and presumptive heir to Amenhotep II to take the throne. This is Zahi Hawass' take on the document from a video program on Ancient Egypt I once saw in the late 1990's and the stela does smack heavily of propaganda--if Thutmose IV was the legitimate successor, he needn't have created such a document to legitimise his unexpected rise to power. Basically, those are my sources with Bryan being the best of the best because her book concentrates on this king's reign unlike the other writers I quoted who just browse by it before proceeding towards Amenhotep III's longer 38 year reign. Regards, Leoboudv 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FF WikiProject

Hi; looking for something to do? I might have an idea. Do you have any official strategy guides, by any chance? — Deckiller 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to attribute a lot of the game material (such as explanations of how the battle systems work, or the descriptions of notable monsters/races/magic types) to a reliable, published source - in this case, it's the official strategy guides. Monsters of Final Fantasy is the first to start this system, and it's about halfway done. But if you can help finish sourcing that with that you have and perhaps start with other articles (Final Fantasy character classes is using mostly manuals packaged with the games right now, which is not as good), that would be greatly appreciated! This may sound vague right now, because we're still trying to find our way, but whatever you can source with those strategy guides is great. — Deckiller 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; any help is appreciated. — Deckiller 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC Maximus the Confessor

I have responded to your request for a theology section for FAC Maximus. Please check the article and see if this now meets the FA criteria. (FYI, I am still trying to think of a way to include some more info on the Maronites). Thanks for your helpful comments, I think they have made for a better article. -- Pastordavid 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article FAC page -- and thanks, your comments have been very helpful, and I think the article is looking better with each change. -- Pastordavid 21:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status. I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well. Again, thanks. -- Pastordavid 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rameseses" or "Ramesses" or "Rameses"?

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is currently a vote over on this page trying to achieve a consensus on which spelling of the name should be used for this line of pharaohs. Just thought that someone who is a better interpreter of hieroglyphics than I am ought to lend their weight and vote accordingly. Cheers! Captmondo 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, In case you're wondering, I made a correction on your introduction page on the spelling of Egypt. BTW, I sent a message directly to "you know who" here and mentioned your site and Captmondo's site.[3] I'm not sure Betacommand cares about our work on Egyptology though. He seems very closeminded and unreasonable--the very antithesis of Wikipedia. Regards, Fabian Leoboudv 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Touregypt website

The website was added to the block list on March 16 for what was considered cross wikispam. That means while it wasn't spammed in English Wikipedia, the spam occured on many wiki's in specific languages. I do not know which Wiki's were affected, but asking User:Eagle 101 could find out some clues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put the entire domain on the whitelist. However, as I mentioned on the whitelist page, I have a few suggestions for you and others.

1. The site should work, if not, tell me so I can fix it
2. Try and use other websites that could convey the same information
3. The presence of ads doesn't bother most of us, but some will still feel that Tour Egypt isn't the best authority to use on Wikipedia, since they are mostly a commercial venture
4. The rules on external links still aplly.

I hope this helps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Amenhotep III

Dear Thomas, I added an image of the temple of Amenhotep III to this king's article today. You can now submit the Amenhotep III article to be proofread by the Wikipedia board; it may perhaps one day be a future featured Wikipedia article. (I don't know how to do this myself!) The article is very good in my opinion. I mostly rewrote the article over the past year and gave verifiable footnoted sources for all the ancient texts listed here. As of today, the Amenhotep III article is close to perfect. While one would wish there was more information on his monumental work throughout Egypt, this can be rectified in future. The article is superior to the ones on Thutmose IV or Akhenaten, which still require lots of work or have much unverified info. or claims. Fabian Leoboudv 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Thomas. I'm afraid--as you may know--I am not very tech savvy. If you wish to improve the phrasing of words or sentences in the article or make them clearer please feel free to do so. I wish there was more data on this king's monumental projects but all the data I have comes from Grimal's book for the most part. Leoboudv 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks and that page

They have a history of making personal attacks. Please join the mediation that's going on right now.--Urthogie 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

First, all Urthogie is trying to do is use his propaganda to turn Newbies in his favor, but besides the point. Why would you ask if I read Redford, he's not the pioneer of the Dynastic Race Theory, it has a long history.. It isn't like he defined the term - Taharqa

Redford doesn't agree with the dynastic race theory, and Thanatosimii isn't a newbie. He's criticized both me and you on the mediation talk page.--Urthogie 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: I'm asking you, because you keep asserting what redford does and does not say, and since you just recently asked, "Who's redford?" I have to wonder if you have read it in the interceeding hours since you discovered he existed, such that you have authority to state what he says and does not say

Well the question doesn't seem to be of relevance given the fact that you had nothing at all to do with the wording of the statement and it's suspect that you'd defend a statement typed up by another person who has obviously admitted to not reading what was said in any context. Obviously he isn't paraphrasing if he didn't read it himself so your point is devoid of meaning, there's no burden of proof on my part, I'm not making wild claims about possible biological demographic changes and trying to quote a cultural "Egyptologist" who I didn't read to answer an anthropological question. It's also another thing to ramble on and not provide any sources or quotes yourself.. I'm sorry, but you seem to be arguing by Straw Man. We're debating over what an "Egyptologist" said in the context of Biological continuity or population change, and still no one provides a quote or anything, but only their own supposed authoritative opinion on what was said by "personal experience". No answers as to how it's relevant to an article about "race" and if the source is qualified to answer these questions, how old it is, is it today's consensus, what exactly is said, if what is implied (that there's disagreement as to the extent of "biological" influence from Mesopotamia) is actually said, that's sloppy. You came in from the POV of a reductionist, if you're going to participate, do it fully please, you're not helping by coming in and out of the situation questioning me only, where have you been all this time? You're not being neutral at all and started off on the wrong page focusing on the wrong things.. - Taharqa

Edit - Never mind, I saw your comments on the discussion page, thanx for the reply and explaining what you meant, giving me a chance to clarify what I meant. Taharqa

Why is she still reverting?

It seemed like you addressed her concerns about Redford, and she is still removing him as a source on both dynastic race theory and race and ancient egypt. Two things:

• If Taharqa reverts again on dynastic race theory, I'm reportin her for 3RR.
• It'd be very helpful if you'd stay on the Ancient Egypt and race article because honestly we'll get nowhere unless there's more people involved in the discussion.--Urthogie 01:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

She's still reverting on dynastic race theory, by the way.--Urthogie 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Intermediate Period and Ryholt

The names Intef and Antef are definitely interchangable as you note. There is an Intef/Antef V and he is definitely a 13th dynasty king...he is listed in the 13th dynasty section of the Turin Kinglist under his prenomen Se[hotep]kare. He must also be listed In thutmose III's Karnak list of Royal Ancestors. In contrast, Intef/Antef VI, VII and VIII are all 17th dynasty Theban kings. So, the Wikipedia entries for them are correct. If there is an Intef V is the 17th dynasty, I suggest you amend it to Intef VI. This must have been someone's typo. Ryholt's source is his 1997 study on the Second Intermediate Period. Even then, it was conventional to name the Sehotepkare Intef/Antef here as Intef/Antef V. Check your E-mail for 3 scans on the situation Sehotepkare is definitely in line 7.22 of the Turin Kinglist. Leoboudv 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, The problem here lies not with Wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It is an old error that was made long ago by Egyptologists. It is now tradition that Nebkheperre Intef/Antef is called Antef VII and so forth. Ryholt recognises the confusion inherent within this numbering system and he calls these kings by their prenomen as in Intef W for Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef (Intef VI), Intef Nebkheperre (Intef VII) and Intef H for Intef Heruhirmaat (Intef VIII) But for Sehotepkare Intef, he clearly calls this king Sehotepkare Intef V because most previous papers call this king Intef V! I had the same reaction as you--who was Intef IV? The answer is probably no one but nobody ever accused Egyptologists of being consistent in their numbering of kings! If we renumber Intef VI, VII and VII, I'm afraid this will only only create even more confusion. Best to let sleeping dogs lie here.

The best example I can give you is that of king Osochor or Osorkon the Elder of the 21st Dynasty. Theoretically, he should be called Osorkon I but Egyptologists long ago decided Osorkon I was the son of Shoshenq I. Some books tried in the past to renumber Osochor as Osorkon I and Osorkon I as Osorkon II but the writers eventually gave up on this experiment because everyone accepted the conventional view that Osorkon I was the son of Shoshenq I. Besides if you did this, you wld have to rename Osorkon II, the son of Takelot I as Osorkon III and Osorkon III as Osorkon IV! You can imagine the confusion this system would create. That is why Egyptologists today follow the traditional numbering system here for these kings. As an Aside, Egyptologists are not stubborn: the Theban king Shoshenq VI was known as Shoshenq IV in pre-1993 books until Egyptologists confirmed the existence of a new Tanite king called Shoshenq whom they renamed Shoshenq IV because he ruled at Tanis between Shoshenq III and Pami unlike the old Shoshenq IV who is attested only in Upper Egypt. So, there is some logic in Egyptologists approach to kings here. Leoboudv 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The reason I believe my friend Nkuka held you in bad faith, and first he did not personally attack you, that's exaggerated, but it's because you come out of no where saying a bunch of off the wall stuff, there's two options. Either you're not being honest and are biased or you don't know a lot about the subject and aren't being helpful, I just had to correct you on some very elementary Egyptological facts. Also you complicate things by demanding Egyptological sources when the article is about ancient Egypt and race and you never chastise or criticize Urthogie who we all know isn't perfect, all of this makes you seem suspect, but that's being honest with you... I make no accusations..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeologist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed - Taharqa 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has criticized me. See the talk page on our requests for mediation.--Urthogie 17:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Ahmose.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ahmose.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Madmedea 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

.

This image is of a 3-d work of art, the PD-art tag can only be used for images of 2-works of art. Madmedea 09:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is a sculpture/engraving on stone therefore it is in 3d - it has depth in the carving it is not just printed on a page or painted on canvas. For more information see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag which explains the law more clearly i.e. coins are 3d art in this case. Madmedea 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Amenhotep I FA Nomination

Saw your note asking me to comment/vote on the Amenhotep I FA nomination. Will provide a critique as soon as I can, but that will likely have to wait until later in the week. Am just back from vacation, and am teaching a night course at the local university during the week so I don't have a lot of spare time these days.

Just did a quick glance of the material you have, and it seems solid: it is well-referenced, well-written (though the subject may not be as inherently interesting as Ahmose I), and reads well. I also like the fact that you chose one of my pics for use in the pharaoh infobox. ;-)

I suspect that some digging through the texts on my end may reveal some other possible out-of-copyright images, particularly of the still-wrapped mummy and cartonage mask. Will see if I can find anything useful in that area. And somewhere I seem to remember reading an article about possible candidates for his burial complex which I will also search for.

In any event, when time allows, will do a thorough critique and place my vote on the FA nomination page.

Cheers! Captmondo 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thomas, Congrats on your Amenhotep I article. I don't how you managed to get a 3-D photo of this king but that is simply amazing! Just to let you know, most serious scholars don't see any evidence for an Ahmose-Amenhotep I coregency. The coregency theory was once very popular especially in the 1960s and 1970s because scholars misread objects bearing the names of a king and his successor as evidence for a coregency between the two. Actually, it is more likely evidence that a current ruler was associating himself with his predecessor--as a way to show respect to one's deceased royal ancestors. BTW, on the Amenhotep III vase, I decided to restore the photo of the vase from the Louvre. The picture of the vase from the Louvre is first rate; someone must have taken the time to carefully photograph the object in France. Also, the vase helps bring the Amenhotep III article to life a little more by adding a nice personal touch on this important king. Regards, Leoboudv 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While my time is limited at the moment, I did manage to track down that article about the "lost tomb" of Amenhotep I last night. I scanned it (all four pages of it ;-) and you can download a copy directly from http://www.captmondo.com/Thanatosimii/TheLostTombOfAmenhotepI.zip. It is about 4MB in size. It is from the archly-titled (but otherwise solid) "The Seventy Great Mysteries of Ancient Egypt" from Thames and Hudson publishers. You can find a full bibliographic reference to the text in the "Ancient Egyptian bibliography" section on my user page. Hope you find it of some use!

Cheers! Captmondo 10:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

Look, since you insist so much on keeping that statement in the Dynastic article, you shouldn't mind providing a quote so we know that the source isn't misrepresented, since it uses the same source that debunks the theory in the same article. That is so suspect, so please provide a quote, otherwise it strongly seems like OR or a misrepresentation as that statement was added much later after the article was already written, it seems redundant and the words "However" and "scholars" seem like weasel words.. If you can't provide a quote after asking me to do it so many times in the AE and Race article, I don't know what to say, but the last thing I want to hear is an opinion. Peace..- Taharqa

Writing as someone with no dog in this fight, I'm puzzled about why this appears so controversial. This paraphrase merely acknowledges something that has been accepted for a long time: that ancient Egyptians borrowed ideas from ancient Mesopotamia. For example, Jared Diamond in his book, Guns, Germs and Steel refers to the hypothesis that the ancient Egyptians borrowed the idea of writing -- not the form of its implementation -- from the Mesopotamians; and there are a number of writers who mention this. -- llywrch 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but it's pretty certain that Egyptian hieroglyphs predate Sumerian cuneiform by a few hundred years, with the first proto-Egyptian writing dating to about 4000 BC. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's based on outdated chronologies. Modern chronologies of the Old kingdom and Predynastic tend to pull Egypt up by 500 to 1000 years, compared to some older ones. Thanatosimii 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm basing this on recent data, not outdated chronologies. Current chronologies still place the first dynasty around 3000, 3100 BC; We have hieroglyphs dating to these periods and earlier, with predecessors (proto-hieroglyphs) going back to Saharan pictographs and having some sort of meaning (not necessarily imparting linguistic information, however) in the early 4th millenium BC. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Amratian remains. Yes, those I will admit have some meaning and preceed any sort of cuneiform, however real writing, in the real meaning of the word, doesn't show up until the Naqada II - Uruk III period, and writing Egypian didn't have its first real sentance until late Dynasty 2, which postdates Sumerian development. Thanatosimii 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we don't have complete sentences yet (you're talking about the Seth-Peribsen tomb seal, right?), but what about the "Scorpion" inscriptions in Tomb U-j at Abydos (Umm al-Qa'ab)? Those are from Naqada IIIA (33rd century BC) and seem to be an early form of hieroglyphs. What's the first "real writing" you're referring to during the Uruk III period (I admit I don't know that much about Sumerians)? Are you referring to inscriptions that impart linguistic information? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they do. The date I see in all my reference sources is usually around 3500 for the development of the Sumerian proto-cuneaform pictographs. Personally, I don't know much about sumerians either, I'm just willing to accept my reference sources as accurate (though if I wanted to press the issue, I'd definitly check further). It doesn't really matter to the conflict at hand, since the material Taharqa contests has nothing to do with writing. Thanatosimii 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yom, you seem to have missed my point. I was merely pointing out that there are scholars who think this, & that is what Thanatosimii was trying to point out in his edits. (FWIW, I think that this is a case of independent invention, but that's not relevant to either the article or this discussion.) My question to Taharqa was to try to understand her take on this matter, why she thought this disputed edit was a misrepresentation or abuse of "weasel words". I don't understand her & am asking -- hopefully in a tactful manner -- for more information. -- llywrch 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that; I wasn't actually commenting on the issue of Taharqa and the article. I just saw the discussion and wanted to point out a piece of information that might not have been known to you or Thanatosimii. Our discussion was tangential and irrelevant to the issue at hand. (P.S., even more unrelated, but I added some more info we can use on Ahmed Gragn if you want to check out the talk page) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I saw that contribution. An interesting fnid. Just haven't had a chance to respond. -- llywrch 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Last response

Thanatosimii, unless it is in concern to the article or somehow is beneficial to its improvement, I will be forced to not respond to your reactionary opinions that are often misinformed and have nothing at all to do with the article or our concerns..Taharqa 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Frankly, we couldn't care less about hearing your uninformed personal opinions and no, these "Myths" are not notable as it is hard to differentiate between fact and fiction since no one has done a DNA test on Cleopatra(who was not an Egyptian) and Extra-terrestrials have nothing to do with the article, nor can we even prove that they exist. The fact that Egypt is in Africa and people study it in an African context is not Afrocentric, nor are you qualified to define Afrocentric or Eurocentric, these are your POVs which again, we don't need here. Every trivial thing on this page was written by Urthogie, all of the recent empirical research was put up by me or Luka among others, so if you're calling Urthogie Afrocentric or claim the he has caused parts of the article to not show "notability" apart from "Afrocentrism"(how ever you may personally define it, which is irrelevant), it has nothing at all to do with who you're directing your comments to, maybe you should check the "history". Seeing as how you also try and undermine the worldly definition of "Africa", which is tectonically separated from Eurasia, and the fact that the term is useful to bio and geo scientists who pin point "African DNA"(variants which arose in Africa) and an "African land mass", means nothing again and is just your view which has nothing to do with practical life..You're obscuring every issue on here, and I have no idea why and don't care since it doesn't concern the article. So far you've done nothing to improve the situation at all but your opinions have become a hassle that we have to deal with accordingly, I have contributed a lot and so has Luka and Urthogie(in his own ways).."

^Again, irrelevant and reactionary opinions will not be entertained, at least not by me.Taharqa 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean you won't be responding to my question to you? If you'd like, we can take this discussion to my Talk page. -- llywrch 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

^I didn't see your response at first, sending me a message is always the best way to reach me. I have no reason to not respond to you, you aren't getting personally frustrated and giving me reactionary replies, I work fine with all neutral and reasonable people, trust that or not.Taharqa 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement on Dynastic Race Theory

No more reverts but I corrected the wording of your statement to avoid weasel words like "significant" and "Influence", see below..

However, Scholars still note that while the Dynastic Race Theory is probably fallacious, the evidence upon which it was based does still indicate at least some predynastic Mesopotamian contact.

^Just in case you decide to reword things the way you feel with out paraphrasing and continue to revert, I put up a weasel word template until the issue is resolved.. Please avoid reverting it..Taharqa 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, not trying to bother you but can you come back and respond ASAP please(Ancient Egypt and Race Talk page), you made a claim that bothers me and undermines all of my contributions with one blanket term that I truly feel is totally unsubstantiated. Btw, I'm checking out your Dynastic Race Source and the year it was printed tomorrow or the next day and if the words "significant influence" are mentioned or if it gives that specific impression or if it isn't contradicted by more recent data, I will not dispute you anymore and remove the tag, or you can, with out worrying about me.Taharqa 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Response: Yes, I'm just getting tired of the endless disputes so I'll read your summary and also check it out myself tomorrow night or the next mourning guaranteed.. As far as the current dispute in AE and Race, not directed at your character personally in any way, but imo you gave me the most absurd argument I've heard in years of debating any subject and your claims are hard to deal with logically, I responded and went to seek a third opinion..Taharqa 07:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of unsolved problems in Egyptology

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of unsolved problems in Egyptology, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology. Thank you.

The tooth of the matter

The "tooth" being the one supposed to have been found in a canopic box with the name of Hatshepsut. I have read accounts of this box in several books and articles over the years, noting the name and mentioning that it contained either a liver or a spleen, but I can't find any reference that says that this box also contained a tooth -- the one which has subsequently been used as evidence by Zahi Hawass to identify one of the two female mummies found in KV60 as being Hatshepsut. It seems an odd omission to me -- have you ever run across any mention of it in the journals you have access to?

Forgive the pun in the title. ;-)

Captmondo 12:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyksos

Made 2 or 3 minor edits on the Hyksos. I readded the old theory by Helck but modified it to make it more relevant. Gave references for the Asiatic origins of the Hyksos. IMO, the persistent argument by 1 party for the supposed Armenian origins of the Hyksos really undermines Wikipedia's credibility. No one really accepts the hyksos were Armenians who were permitted to travel from the Caucasus through either Turkey (Hittite territory) or Mesopotamia (ie; Babylon/Assyria) into Egypt. This argument strikes me as impossible. Moreover, Kamose calls Apophis the Chieftain of Retenu (or Canaan) once which implies a Canaanite background for these foreign kings.(Ryholt, PSE 1997, p.126) Finally, the Hyksos king Sakir-Har is a theophorous name which is compounded with the Canaanite name harru or mountain. This also supports a West Semitic origin for the Hyksos--not even close to Armenia. Leoboudv 08:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise! The unknown Armenian user totally removed my edit within minutes of my contribution on the Hyksos and added back his totally unproven POW article on the Hyksos's Armenian roots. Talk about pushing your own POW on others...this is becoming something akin to the Great Pyramids article where the 'pyramidiots' take control of the article and not vice versa. Its little wonder Egyptologists don't take Wikipedia seriously...and who can blame them! With people like this, I can understand why good contributors are driven away and tempted to visit Citizendium instead--which at least has an editor in charge of important articles. I will add some more info. but frankly I am 100% sure it will be reverted back again sooner rather than later. Leoboudv 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a final edit on the Hyksos and won't get into any edit wars here. I gave clear evidence for the Semitic origins of king Sakir Har and Khyan as well as Kamose's statement about Apophis. If you are monitoring the article, I hope you will look at my final revision. It is clear that while the Hyksos are not conclusively West Semitic/Asiatic, they have close links to Canaan and not to remote Armenia in the Caucasus. Even Assyria is closer to Armenia than Egypt! But, I predict it will simply be edited out by the anonymous Armenian contributor who cites a completely unknown 1989 research to say the Hyksos are Armenians. IMO, someone has an agenda to make sure the Hyksos are called Armenians on Wikipedia and will push their POW on others to ensure this stays the case just as the 'pyramidiots' claim that visiting aliens created the great pyramids rather than the native Egyptians. It would have been better if he had joined the Yahoo New Chronology Forum instead...rather than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Leoboudv 09:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What did I say. The Armenian user removed my post. What a shame. Leoboudv 20:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, I'm not surprised that you know him. His (I don't know who he is, do you?) behaviour is simply abhorrent. I made a long detailed reply on the Hyksos origins complete with detailed references and he simply deletes them all without discussion. He uses various (and ALL) anonymous IPs to push his same 'argument' that really the Hyksos were from Armenia. While I agree with Kim Ryholt that the Hyksos background cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence of Kamose's statement about Apophis Canaanite roots plus the names of the known Hyksos kings all lead to a West Semitic, Canaanite background. Wikipedia is known to use anti-vandal machines. Don't you--as a moderator--have something equivalent to revert back Armenian related messages for the Hyksos article. It is a pity that he wastes so much time on this one issue...as if he hasn't other better things to do like write a history on the culture or history of Armenia, etc. Leoboudv 08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked Llywrch how to deal with sockpuppets and thsi was his reply. Maybe you know something about it because I am not a teck geek here. Hope this helps!

"You can report suspected sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I don't know who this person could be, but based on a brief glance at the numerous edits in the history, you should also try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

As for Captmondo's post above, until now I thought he was an Admin already. Although I have the Admin bit, & am quite happy to intervene & try to deal with abuse, due to my schedule I'm lucky if I can spend more than an hour or two a day on Wikipedia. (And a lot of that time is often spent reading various pages in an attempt to untangle some new controversy. Bleh.) In some ways I feel like a hold-over from an earlier period at Wikipedia, when all people cared about was whether the candidate had good judgement & a familiarity with how Wikipedia worked, & not whether they had the time or the dedication to "fight the bad guys." -- llywrch 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)"

Is this all anonymous user action? Or was there originally a user doing that is now banned ? Markh 10:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Egypt restored

11-July-2007: The ID "User:Lanternix" (notified) was logged as overwriting an unsourced map image onto a map of Egypt developed by the American CIA, on 19-May-2007 at 1:09 a.m, which has been restored (after 52 days). Map image: Image:Egypt-region-map-cities.gif (view older versions to compare).

Received with WikiProject: Ancient Egypt. -Wikid77 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

Hi there, You might want to monitor the Hatshepsut page a bit in the next few days. A single user named '83d40m ' is claiming that Hatshepsut really was her father's chosen successor to the throne. He cites an old book by the British novelist Evelyn Waugh who died in 1966. But Ms Waugh was not an Egyptologist, she was just a mid-20th century novelist who wrotes on many diverse subject's. I found only a few references to her on Google. User 83d40m seems to think Thutmose I could predict that his daughter would outlive his son (Thutmose II) and accepts at face value her clearly false claims that she was indeed Thutmose I's successor. I reverted his addition here yesterday but he reversed my edit today. I assume he will do so to mine again soon. He suggests I lack a neutral POV even though the historical facts show that Thutmose II succeeded Thutmose I with Hatshepsut wielding much influence at court during the latter's short reign. A minor son of a king like Thutmose II always had first claim to the throne rather than a daughter of the king. Anyone who follows the real historical facts knows Hatshepsut assumed power unexpectedly--as Ineni's biography shows. Its a pity some people cannot accept the facts here and instead post fiction on such an important people like Hatshepsut. Leoboudv 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Londonderry Air

Thanks for catching that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

Hi, I don't understand your edit summary here. Could you explain what "rv POINT" is intended to mean? --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:User egy-1

Hi. I have proposed merging Category:User egy, which is populated entirely by Template:User egy-1 (which you created), into Category:User Egyp or Category:User Egyp-1. Your clarification as to which is a more appropiate merge target would be most appreciated. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will specify the appropriate target at the deletion discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kadesh article

Thanks for the input on the Battle of Kadesh article. The huge list of references appears to just been copied in from a webpage. To be charitable the user who did this seems to be enthusiastic beyond belief, but really doesn't take criticism (and I imagine the removed references will be back soon). They have done the same for another article (Nine bows, I'm not sure how to deal with someone how "doesn't play well with others", other than just report him (i've posted the copyright violation – which appears to be ignored), any ideas on how to handle this ? Markh 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Armenian IP

Hi Thanatosimi, I wonder if our anonymous Armenian contributor is Moosh88? He seems to be dealing mainly with Armenian related matters and seems determined to remove my creation of the Naharin article. He says that Naharin was a reference for Armenians when actually no one can really equate the ancient Mitannians with modern day Armenians. I'm highly doubtful since we all know what happens to most ancient peoples who get conquered by a great power: they simply disappear from history like the lost tribes of Israel or the Phoenicians. The only certain fact is Mitanni was a Hurrian kingdom. Personally, I don't have a big problem on whether Wikipedia keeps or deletes my brief Naharin article since it was just an Egyptian reference to Mitanni. But, I am suspicious nevertheless that he seems to be 'shadowing' me a little as you can see here: [4] Of course, its possible this is a friend of Arev's. Anyway, just a thought. Leoboudv 05:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requests for adminship/Captmondo

I just wanted to say "thank you" for your support -- and to express some surprise that you actually ran across my self-nomination for the role, since I didn't publicize the fact. Don't know if I will get in at this point, and I appreciate your thumb's up.

Cheers! Captmondo 12:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Request help with article Ancient Egypt

As you are listed as a member of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, I'd like to recruit your help in reviewing the article Ancient Egypt. The article is listed as top priority in the Wikiproject and as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but appears to have failed to meet Good Article criteria at its last nomination. The article is in need of some serious attention.

In the past week, I asked for (and got) the article to be semi-protected to protect against the constant barrage of vandalism. This protection lasts for two weeks. I also did a little clean-up, added a map and so on. I would like to see everyone in Wikiproject:AncientEgypt have the chance to add their input to Ancient Egypt, and get the article up to featured status as soon as possible. I believe the article is at least 80% of the way there, and some focused attention will bring it the rest of the way.

The most pressing concerns seem to be the culture/architecture section, and the achievements/unsolved problems sections. Also, the entire article, especially the achievements section, the sources, and external links need to be seriously checked for accuracy. These sections also require a little organization too.

Ancient Egypt ought to be the top priority of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, and I look forward to working with everyone to get this article cleaned up and hopefully promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hatshepsut pic

I remember that controversy too, however I believe this pic to be legit. It is a cropped version of this, which (even better) comes from a full gallery of pics of the Hatshepsut gallery in the Metropolitan Museum of Art about a year before those pieces went on tour. The author of the pics is this fellow who also happens to be a lawyer. Given all of this and the fact that I have the book in question where the previous contentious image came from, am certain this is all on the up-and-up. And I just noticed that the original poster has given me his permission to copy these images over to Wikimedia Commons, so I'll do that this evening.

Interested in helping to cleaning up the Hatshepsut article and then go through the Good/Featured article round again?

Cheers! Captmondo 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Reverting passages with sources, and not giving a reason, is also uncivil. Let's apply the rules to all. ;)--Moosh88 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? So it is ok to revert whatever you feel like. You may hold that standard, but the greater wikipedia community doesn't--Moosh88 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my central point, which is that reverting a passage that has a citation, especially from major scholars, is not how civil editors act. If it continues, it can easily be vandalism.--Moosh88 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, continue to act that way (reverting cited edits) and we shall see if you are not warned or even temporarily banned.--Moosh88 05:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Just to let you know that DBachmann is responding to A. Arev's sockpuppetts. Don't know if it will be enough..maybe you should also contact him about the issue of protecting Wikipedia articles from this form of abuse. See this link to his talk page: [5] Regards, Leoboudv 08:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to add your opinion/vote to renaming of KV62 -> Tomb of Tutankhamen

As someone whose opinion I value, I am asking if you would take a peek at Talk:KV62, and voice your opinion on the suggested move. I am not trying to solicit an Oppose vote, but instead am trying am asking people who have an active interest in things Ancient Egyptian to contribute to the talk as well. Cheers! Captmondo 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your opinion/vote to the Talk:KV62 re: KV62 -> Tomb of Tutankhamen. I wanted to solicit opinions/votes from those I thought might have a real interest in the issue. Ultimately the main thrust of the argument for centers around WP:NC, which I think is being too broadly applied in this instance (but that's my opinion). Though I read more oppose votes than for, in the end there was no consensus (a simple majority may not apply in this case) to move, so there's every chance the debate will continue sometime in the future. Cheers! Captmondo 11:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Menes article

I've done some digging into this area and from what I am finding, it appears that Menes might be fully legendary, and his "existence" may have more to do with misreading of a hieroglyph for a place name that link to two jar dockets for both Narmer and Hor-Aha. According to Shaw, his name appears on the Palermo Stone (which I have been unable to confirm from other sources) and the legend was certainly current by the time of Herodotus and Manetho. So am thinking of overhauling the Menes article, but wanted to check in with you first to see if this jibes with your understanding of the topic.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)