User talk:Thanatosimii/Archive 2

Ahmose I in my sandbox

Do you think we should transfer the discussions we had on the article in my sandbox to the main talk page now? It might help people who weren't involved before we transferred it. And do you know if there's any way to transfer the edits done to it on my sandbox to the main article page, so people can see the gradual evolving of the final product? All of our extensive edits are invisible on the main page now!
— E ditor at Large ( talk) 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe we should ask Jimbo ;-)
— E ditor at Large ( talk) 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Osman

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've briefly presented my arguments on the project's talk page. Beit Or 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 13:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt Pics Wanted While in Berlin?

Hey there:

You probably saw my vote in the straw poll for the Ahmose I page, where I said I would be busy much of this month as well as some of the next. I'll be on a business trip to Berlin in early November which requires that I be there over a weekend. The hotel will be in walking distance of the Egyptian Museum there. Assuming I am allowed to take pics (which, judging by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Berlin would seem to be the case), is there anything in particular I ought to aim for picture-wise in support of an article or three?

Cheers! Captmondo 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am in Berlin as I write, and have just uploaded a couple of pics of a bust labeled as depicting Hatshepsut. They can be found on Wikipedia Commons at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hatshepsut01-AltesMuseum-Berlin.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hatshepsut02-AltesMuseum-Berlin.png. They have been released under Copyleft/GFDL/CC, so they are free and clear for use on "her" page.

It'll take some time (more than I have at the moment), but I have many more images that ought to be of use under the general category of Ancient Egypt. These include an image of a baboon bearing the name of Narmer, numerous Armana-era images including those of Akhenaton and Nefertiti, and several images of some interesting and notable papyri, including images of a copy of the Westcar Papyrus, The Dispute Between A Man And His Ba-Soul (which I note has no corresponding Wikipedia page), a couple of illustrated guides to the afterlife, what I think may be a good illustrative version of the Fivefold Titulary and more besides. Will post a similar to the rest of the posters in the Ancient Egypt category to let them know what images will soon be available under Wikipedia Commons.

Auf weidersehen from a rainy Berlin! Captmondo 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your reply; good luck on repairing the flare off of the glass case. If you are able to do so, you are a better Photoshop-er than I!

And just fyi, am pasting a listing of the images I am uploading to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt#Illustrative_Images_from_the_Altes_Museum.2C_Berlin. Will be posting more there hopefully prior to flying back home tomorrow. On top of these, I have about another 20 or so images to add, and that's not including the pictures I took at the Pergammon Museum (largely Greek/Roman/Mesopotamian in the latter case).

Cheers! Captmondo 08:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhenaten

Dear Thomas, This is to let you know that a user named 66.20.181.226 has totally vandalised and/or rewritten the Wikipedia article on Akhenaten. see here: [1] The entire bibliography section for this king has been deleted and that is just the beginning...! Its amazing people can do this on Wikipedia. This must be the definition for Vandalism. Unbelievable! Leoboudv 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What to do...?

A good question, but I'll admit that I might not have the best answer.

In short, the NPOV doctrine does allow Africancentrists to document their beliefs -- as long as they are appropriately cited (e.g., "In Black Athena it reads..."). This is a justifiable point of view to include, but I don't think that the issue of Akhenaten's "blackness" merits more than a paragraph & a link to the more appropriate Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians.

In the case you pointed me to, this anon editor failed to document where this belief came from, except for the usual handwaving. On one hand, this gives us an easy out: until this anon can supply more than assertions, Wikipedia's guidelines would support anyone reverting these changes. (I think this may be the answer you are looking for: if these people insist on reverting these changes, I'd recommend asking for help first on WP:3RR or WP:AN/I as best fits.) Of course if the instance justifies it, try a softer approach than a knee-jerk reversion first: when in doubt, assume good faith.

On the other hand, this issue would doubtlessly benefit from a more detailed discussion rich with sources. For example, on the Talk page you mention that "in one of the old catalogues of the antiquities authorities from around 1910, a group of archaeologists spotted a modern egyptian who was a dead ringer for Akhenaten, and published the pictures"; if you could supply the bibliographical information for this picture (even better would be a scan of the page, & the work would obviously be out of copyright), it would be a significant step towards stabilizing the inevitable disputes around this issue.

One person I'll recommend to you for guidance in this matter is Yom, who not only has a level head but views the entire controversy from an African (not Africancentrist) point of view. He may be able to figure out a way to express a draft that addresses the concerns of all parties involved. I hope this answers your question.

And now for something different. The local art museum is opening an exhibit of many of the finer examples of Egyptian art, & had Zahi Hawass deliver the opening lecture. Quite the showman. I helped support his travelling costs by buying a copy of his latest book (which he autographed). I recorded some of the anecdotes from his speech over at my blog if you're curious. -- llywrch

Re: Work on seventh and eigth dynasties

The names are from a proposed chronology I created & published at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Temp a couple of years ago, which includes my sources. (Most of them are far less exotic than you might think.) I put my research notes on the Talk page, as well as my rationale in making choices. Feel free to use as much of this as you find useful. -- llywrch 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmose I is GA!

Yay! Congrats! Ahmose I made it to GA: So when does the FA nom begin? :-D — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am back from my business trip to Berlin and things have quietened down work-wise for a little bit. So I am ready and able to help with the defence of the Ahmose I article as a possible Featured Article. (Caveat: I won't likely be available during normal working hours, but otherwise I can and will be as responsive as possible). Let's do it! (And congrats by the way!) Captmondo 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that you were planning on doing the FA tonight. Fine with me! Just let me know when it is there so that I can keep tabs on it. I strongly suggest that you also inform the people in the Ancient Egypt group on Wikipedia both for support for useful critiques to the nomination.

Cheers! Captmondo 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Ahmose, What Next?

The FA process for the Ahmose I is proceding well -- in fact I've never seen another one I've been involved with go as smoothly as this. If all goes well, any thoughts on what to tackle next (assuming you want to do this of course). For what it is worth I think we work well together, and I would be happy to work on further collaborations in the area.

My guess is that you may suggest working on other New Kingdom pharaohs (Hatshepsut is close, arguably as is Ramessess II) but I wonder if sinking the work into a significant but not well documented king (such as Ahmose I), might prove to be of more interest. Khufu from the Old Kingdom or perhaps Psammetichus I from the Late Period for example.

Cheers! Captmondo 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with either Hatshepsut of Thutmose III, though am a bit leery of the former as she is a favourite of many Egyptological kooks, and may consequently be harder to pass FA as a result (the article must be considered "stable"). If you want a "learning experience", in that regard, it would be a good one. ;-) In the same vein, Ramses II would be a good challenge, and I note that the German version of the article has already achieved FA status. The drawback for me is that I do not have enough biblical knowledge/background to tackle the perennial "Was he the Pharaoh of the Exodus?" section. Horemheb also strikes me as being a good, interesting and well-documented pharaoh to tackle as well that would likely be less contentious (though anything touching upon the subject of Tutankhamen is likely to stir up a few people). From the OK I think Khufu or perhaps Khafre ought to be championed, as establishing Good or FA-quality articles on these might help make some inroads on the genuine mess that the Great Pyramid article has become.

One of my pet projects has been Pepi II, but have pretty much run out of source material for it, and it has been pointed out to me recently that the issue of successors (especially the spurious Queen Nitocris) has long been settled in the academic community and the article needs to be straightened out accordingly. Am also planning on brushing up on my technical illustration skills to depict the funerary complex -- something I would like to tackle for Ahmose I at some point as well. Once those things are done I am planning on applying for Good Article status once those things are out of the way, then maybe FA depending on the reaction I get. But I would be happy to tackle something else in the meantime for variety's sake, such as the other pharaohs that have been suggested.

Cheers! Captmondo 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support of finishing off the Pepi II article. How about this then: we both expand/correct/fact-check Thutmose III and Hatshepsut for starters, and then move on to Pepi II and Ramses II. What say you?

As for Khufu, I don't doubt that your prof is correct, but there's plenty in the Westcar Papyrus that alludes to his personality, which, whether correct or not certainly coloured history's view of him up to and past the time of Herodotus. What can I say, I like a challenge. That was exactly the reason why I tackled Pepi II -- much like Ahmose I, there's a fair bit of info out there, but scattered. I suspect the situation is largely true of Khufu too.

Btw: mind if I ask which University you are at out of curiosity's sake? Captmondo 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is settled then: will start to tackle Thutmose III, then Hatshepsut, Pepi II, Ramses II and possibly Khufu. This is our roadmap for now, subject to change pending circumstances. Will see you on the articles' respective talk pages then!

Sounds like you lucked out in terms of getting a good Egyptology faculty at your college. There is a fairly substantial faculty and resources (so I understand) at the University of Toronto, which is local to me (and where I teach as a lecturer on Information Architecture). There's also an excellent public reference library here, so if you are looking for a particular article in a journal, chances are I will be able to track it down given sufficient time to do so.

I really ought to add that I am very much a self-educated amateur in this subject, never having taken the subject formally, and was inspired when the Tut exhibit came to Toronto in the late '70s. I believe I have gotten a good sense over the years as to who makes good and effective arguments in the field, but will probably look to guidance from you in certain areas where there may be conflicting (or simply out-of-date) theories.

Cheers! Captmondo 14:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmose I is FA!

Raul654 gave his official imprimatur to the article earlier this morning. It is officially Feature Article class. Congrats! I have never seen an article fly through the FA process so quickly, which attests to the extensive work that you gave to the article. Truly a major achievement.

I'll leave it to you to propose the request as to when it ought to appear on the "front page" of Wikipedia. There should probably also be a posting about this to the Ancient Egypt group about it as well.

Btw: have gone through the Thutmose III article and have a number of suggestions to make in terms of direction, but that will have to wait until this evening (hopefully).

Cheers, and again congrats! Captmondo 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My one cent: Congratulations!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

For your amazing work on the article Ahmose I, which passed both GA and FA without a single oppose, I award you the Tireless Contributor barstar. Wear it with pride, for you most certainly deserved it! — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys did all the grunt work, you deserve one of these for every 10 edits (what would that be, about 50 barnstars?)... but this will have to suffice. Again, congratulations! — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thutmosis III

Saw your note about the recent death in your family -- my condolences! Never an easy time.

Thinking that you will likely be kept busy with family matters for a while, I just wanted to let you know that I have "switched gears" temporarily and am working on the Valley of the Kings article along with Marhk. That article is also shaping up nicely and will hopefully go the same GA -> FA route as did the Ahmose I article.

Hope all is well with you and your family given the circumstances. And don't bury yourself with work in the virtual world (i.e. Wikipedia) to escape the real one!

Cheers! Captmondo 21:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Pepi II Pic

The only way I am likely to get a replacement pic of that image is to head to the Brooklyn Museum and take another one. ;-) Unfortunately I am not planning on being in NYC anytime in the near future. :-( As you know, there are very few sources of images for Pepi II, though I think there is a relief image of him on a site that we might be able to use with better attribution (one that is more likely to hold up than the one that was deleted). Will see what I can come up with, even if it is temporary.

For what it is worth I will be on a business trip to Boston in March and am planning to make a visit to the Fine Arts Museum there, where they apparently have a substantive Egyptian exhibit there. Will bring camera.

Am sorry to hear about your double-bereavement. Take things easy, and please don't use Wikipedia as an escape from real life (that would likely be my temptation under the same circumstance). Real life has much more to offer than Wikipedia ever can.

Cheers! Captmondo 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serket

Sorry! I didn't mean to confound you. Sorry about your loss. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I saw it on the Egyptian chronology page, and acted accordingly. My mistake. George "Skrooball" Reeves 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be a redirect? I'm just notifying you. George "Skrooball" Reeves 07:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do these "cut and paste" moves since it fails to carry along the page history. The article was originally at King Scorpion but was moved a few days ago to Serket II using the page move function. To move it back, since there is now some edit history at the King Scorpion page that was created during the original move to serve as a redirect to the new location, you need the assistance of an admin. You should therefore place a request at WP:RM. I don't recommend putting it in the "Uncontroversial proposals" section since there plainly is some controversy about it and some discussion will be required.

I'll be reverting so that the main page content is with the bulk of its history, not because I particularly support the original move. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thutmose III

Yes, I'll keep in in mind whenever I'm around. Are you going for GA with this one too? — Editor at Large ^(speak) 07:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]