User talk:Leoboudv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] RE: Twinkle

Hi Leo. Yes, twinkly is VERY helpful when fighting vandalism. You can get it here WP:TWINKLE. Instructions on how to install it are there (basically you just copy and past the code they give you to your monobook.js page on wikipedia). Happy vandal fighting! —Ocatecir Talk 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ay

Hello again! Thanks for making the addition to the Ay article for the reference that I thought ought to be there about him having killed Tutankhamun -- while I remember seeing a somewhat sensationalistic Discovery Channel show alluding to the possibility, I didn't think there were serious scholars who believed in it. So what exactly is the motive that Brier gives to the aging Ay to want to kill Tutankhamun in the first place?

Just got back from another business trip, this time from Boston. Visited the Ancient Egyptian galleries at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which is a solid collection, especially of Old Kingdom pieces from in and around Giza. Haven't finished processing everything yet, but you can get a glimpse as to what's there by taking a look at what can be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Captmondo/gallery#Museum_of_Fine_Arts.2C_Boston.2C_March_2007.

One thing I found a little bit surprising: there's no article on Wikipedia on Reserve heads, which could now be illustrated. Not sure if this is an area of interest for you, but I thought I would point it out.

Cheers! Captmondo 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say "thank you" for enlightening me on Bob Brier's "Ay murdered Tut" theory. At face value it does seem far-fetched, especially now in the light of new evidence (I have to wonder if Brier has made any subsequent comments to continue to support his theory or not. Might be worth checking for.)
I checked out Citizendium. Looks good, but for now will continue to throw my lot in with Wikipedia. Despite the vandals and the nuts, on the whole the egalitarian ideas behind Wikipedia. We'll see how things pan out. Was not impressed with their article on Khufu, which concluded with pretty dubious claim.
The image you've added to the Mentuhotep III article looks good. Would look better if it was in a pharaoh infobox (hint, hint ;-) What I found interesting about that statue was how similar it looked in terms of style to that of Ahmose I, whose statues apparently copied the style of the Middle Kingdom Metuhoteps.
Have more work to do on uploading fresh photos from my visit to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and have just finished uploading another batch to the same place on my gallery page (same link as in previous posting.)
Cheers! Captmondo 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you've found an interesting new book on Ancient Egyptian chronology. And at that price, it's not likely to find a spot on my personal bookshelf (it's about twice the maximum I have so far paid for a book on the topic in general).
Have just checked my copy of The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, and you are right about the relative incompleteness as to what's known of the Mentuhoteps in general (and specifically with Metuhotep III). Still, there are other very minimal pharaoh infoboxes out there already, such as those for a number of early Old Kingdom pharaohs -- one of the nice things about the design of the infobox in this case is that there is room to expand should more info turn up.
You've also pointed out one of the chief advantages of Wikipedia (or Citizendium for that matter), that the info has the potential to be much more current than print can ever hope to be. I just finished taking a stab at an article for Reserve heads, and noted in one of the publications that I have that very few examples of the sides or backs of the heads have ever been published. I took several shots of the heads I saw in Boston in profile (particularly those that has interesting details, such as deliberate gouges or plasterwork) and now they are on Wikimedia. (Had I read the article first prior to my visit, I would have made a point of photographing the back of the heads as well. Oh well. ;-)
Cheers once again! Captmondo 03:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pharaoh infobox sizes

I think the answer to that is easy: take a look at the nomen for Smendes and Ramesses XI in comparison to the longest part of the royal titulary for the other two you cite. I don't believe the hieroglyphic font being used on Wikipedia is scalable, and there's no easy way to write the hieroglyphics in a vertical rather than a horizontal manner. We may be stuck with what we have, but it is at least better than nothing. ;-)

Just got around to adding some material (and image galleries) to the articles on Kiya and Narmer. I think I may have a picture of Kiya on a talatat from one of my trips that I haven't processed as yet. Kiya needs considerable cleaning up, though my sources for her are few.

I saw the "exhange of views" on Ay being a murderer of Tutanhkamun, with the anon IP presumably being Egyptzo(?) Found a word-for-word copyright violation while trying to source the book he was citing (which, I have yet to confirm actually exists in the updated form that was claimed). Busted any legitimacy the poster had as far as I was concerned. Cheers from several time zones ahead of you. Captmondo 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pictures of Narmer

Glad you like the various pics of Narmer I posted to "his" article. Again, this is one of those things that the Web in general (an Wikipedia specifically) can excel in over and above traditional print media: instead of having a single illustration of an item, multiple representative pictures can be added. Hopfully over time the cumulative nature of Wikipedia will allow other people to add their own pics of things, and who knows, maybe something new will be discovered along the way. ;-)

By the way, the Narmer Macehead is not my photo, though I posted it to Wikimedia on behalf of someone else. (With luck I may be able to head to that museum later this year -- time will tell).

Some other gallery sections on pages that might be of interest to you that I have pulled together:

This may go some way to explaining why I have spent more time on Wikimedia of late than on Wikipedia.

Cheers! Captmondo 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Amenhotep III

The next step on the way to featured is probably the Good Article nomination. It'll probably get more comments than if it goes through peer review or a copyedit, anyway... the peer review system here really has never been any good. At any rate, I'll nominate it for GA and someone will review it, however there's currently a big backlog, so it may take a few weeks. I agree that the article is better than many, but some of the phrasing could stand to be a little more concise, and the number of quotes is likely to concern some editors, so it may not go through the GA nomination well. We'll see. Thanatosimii 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing Hieroglyphics in Wikpedia

While writing something to Alensha I saw a previous posting you had made to her asking how to write hieroglyphs in Wikipedia (I also remember getting an email from you saying that you didn't know how). From what I can tell there are in fact two ways of doing it: phonetically and using a sign list. My command of the language is insufficient to tackle the first option, though I note that as long as you know the signs and enclose them in hiero tags, they will be converted automatically to their syllabic equivalents.

For rank amateurs such as myself, I instead resort to a full listing of the signs and piece together everything painstaking by hand. The master list I use is Gardiner's list, helpfully divided upon into several categories of signs, which can be found on Wikimedia at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiHiero/Syntax#Gardiner.27s_sign_list.

The best way to learn this is to "play" with it: take an existing example from an article, then take the code to your own sandbox and try inserting Gardiner's codes into it in order to match whatever pictorial source you have for the cartouche/Egytpian phrase.

Cheers! Captmondo 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Captmondo already told the most important things about writing hieroglyphs here, I'm just adding a few useful bits:

  • You can start and end a cartouche with <- and ->
  • Putting a colon between two signs means the second one will be under the first one,
  • If you need to put two signs under one, write an asterisk between the two,
  • Most of the very common glyphs can be written not only by their Gardiner number but by just typing them as well, e.g. the wave that means the n sound can be written either as "N35" or as "n", similarly, sun can be written not only as "N5" but as "ra".
  • Here you can find the meanings of the glyphs too, not only their Gardiner sign, but last time I checked it was only partially translated, so some knowledge of German helps.
  • Here is a hieroglyph, if you open this page for editing, you will see how is it written.
<
i mn
n		 R4
t p
>

regards, – Alensha talk 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amenemope and Siamun

When it comes to royal titulary, you can always count on Spanish Wikipedia, they have all the five names for almost all pharaohs. Check es:Amenemope and es:Siamón. Though their spelling of Amenemope's name is a little different than what I've seen in Dodson's Complete Royal Families, page 203, where the "mer" hieroglyph was left out and the two god figures were facing each other (I guess that's not possible with this wikicode). – Alensha talk 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Intermediate Period and Ryholt

As I've said, I don't have access to this book, but I've got some concerns about this period which pretty much need its input, so I wonder if you might be able to help me. In List of pharaohs, I discovered that our pages on the kings named in.t.f in egyptian are titled variously Intef and Antef. I was going to switch them all to one or the other, however I discovered that there is both an Antef V in the 13th dynasty, and an Intef V in the 17th dynasty. There is, however, no Antef or Intef IV. Do you know if the Antef V in the 13th should be Antef IV, or is somthing else strange going on here... Thanks for any help. Thanatosimii 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC

Hmm... It's just that I was doing some more research, and found an Intef V in the 17th dynasty in Redford's Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt... Also, if it is Intef V is in the 13th Dynasty, where is Intef IV? Dear me, the 2nd intermediate period is confusing! I'll look through those scans again, and if you understand the solution to this particular problem, it would help me a lot. Thanks. Thanatosimii 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I get it now... I'm still confused why I find an Antef V in the 17th Dynasty in one book, though, but I suppose that's another numbering mistake as well. Thanatosimii 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Amenhotep I

Yes, I know that there isn't much argumentation for a coregency, I just thought I'd flush out what the theory actually was. I do note that both possible coregencies aren't generally accepted. As for the photo, I believe Captmondo is the one who obtained it. He seems to be coming up with a wealth of images due to his travels of late.

I suppose the lack of Amenhotep III Images merits including whatever we have, however I'd prefer to see some context provided which that image fits, instead of just leaving it there. Amenhotep III is known to have left prolific remains behind, both artistically and architecturally. A section should probably be composed eventually (I have a few sources, but I'll get on looking for more) about these artworks, and the image would fit there better. However, until such a paragraph is included, I suppose the image isn't too conspicuously irrelevant where it is. Thanatosimii 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Neferneferuaten

Interesting bit of research; I hope you don't mind I made a few tweaks -- when our edits weren't conflicting. I suggest that you nominate this article for Wikipedia:Did you know, where it could be exhibited on the Main page. I think this would easily qualify, since few people would know that she was one of the few Queens of ancient Egypt. -- llywrch 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tiye?

I just saw the message you left on my Talk page. My name isn't "Keith" -- I'm not sure I've mentioned it on Wikipedia, but I know it's not that hard to find (FWIW, it's Geoff). Were you directing that message to me? I don't remember us talking about Tiye lately. -- llywrch 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Oh sorry. I mixed you up with Captmondo. My apologies Leoboudv 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hyksos

Yeah, I know that user well. He's totally blocked and banned and the works for horrid behavior over in Armenia. We just need someone to block his new sockpuppets. Thanatosimii 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One of his recent postings including a reference to a Scientific American article from the early 90s that I had remembered reading, and knew that his argument very much over-reached the actual conclusions of the authors. He then reverted my deletion saying that it came from a book (with no page reference, naturally) instead. I have been keeping tabs on the situation peripherally, and I think there are only a few possible solutions for those of us who wish to retain the integrity of the information on this topic in Wikipedia:
- Do the work and upgrade the article to Feature Article status: I don't know if I can be of too much help in this area, as all I can contribute are references from a single substantive work in my personal library. However improving the article will keep the spotlight on it and administrators will be more adept at spotting and closing the sock puppet-ing.
- One of us becomes an administrator, with the intention of keeping watch over the Egyptological articles: I would gladly nominate you, Leoboudv for the position, as you are clearly a regular and conscientious contributor in good standing. Ditto Thanatosimii, but previous post in this thread excepted, his talk page says that he is on an extended break. I could also do the job (and if you nominate me I would accept), but every now and then business or teaching takes me out of the picture for a while. Administrators have access to better tools against sock puppetry, and having a administrator who is fair and knowledgeable in things Ancient Egyptian is a good thing in general.
-Try to contain the views in an "Alternate theories" sub-section: am guessing this has already been tried, and that the sock puppet contributor is unlikely to see his pet theory as anything but mainstream.
-Cede the ground to him on this point: not a palatable option, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. Not one I can live with though.
Now that my teaching is done for the school year I plan on doing more on Wikipedia over the summer, and if there is anything either of you would like to collaborate on that I can help with substantially, I'd be glad to do so.
Cheers! Captmondo 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Another option, I think, is to get semi-protection for the page. That would block all anon editors, and new accounts for a "probation period", although I don't know how long. Of course, that would require an admin to set, but I think we can make a case for it. ~ MD Otley (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The mother of Ramesses IV and VI

Dear Fabian,

Dodson & Hilton's book says Iset Ta-Hemdjert is the mother of these two kings. What source says she wasn't? – Alensha talk 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I also left a note on the talk page of this Semenmedjatre. – Alensha talk 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramessesnakht is not included in the Dodson book, because he was not royal. Most of what I know about him is from the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, but the info in that book is already included in the article, so I couldn't add anything, only a category. regards, – Alensha talk 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Akhenaten and Muwatalli

Thanks for the links to the articles, they are very interesting, especially the Muwatalli one.

I'm not a member of EEF yet but I often read their archives. I'm planning to join their mailing list.

regards, – Alensha talk 11:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 2 million articles, that's really something :) I know that a large amount of the articles are stubs and duplicates, but it's still nice that wikipedia is this big. I'm sceptical about Citizendium, they grow very slowly, and WP is much more famous, so we attract more editors.

Thanks for the article about Hattusili, it's very interesting! – Alensha talk 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Anonymous Armenian IP

Incidentally, Naharin has a much broader usage than that page gives it credit, so I defended keeping and expanding the article. Particularly because part of the justification for deletion was on the basis of a false claim in Nairi which stated it was a synonym with Naharin. It is not; they are two different words. They share one root, but they are two different places, on opposing sides of the Tigris. Thanatosimii 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 17:31, 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.
As an aside, I was somewhat surprised to find that your name does not appear in the "Participants" list on WP:KMT. As someone who is so active on Ancient Egyptian articles on Wikipedia, I really think your login name ought to appear there, though of course that is entirely up to you. Cheers! Captmondo 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Captmondo 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has now moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Can you add anything to the discussion? Markh (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I just wanted to say "thank you" with regards to this ongoing discussion. Your longish post pointing out the name variants for "Yuya" added a few more that I hadn't run across before. Am hoping that this will settle down that both sides can live with soon, and may help spur serious talk in other areas as well (such as standardizing on names, spellings, etc.)
On a different issue altogether I have been done some digging in the Menes article of late, and I just wanted to check on this with you prior to posting, since you appear to have an interest in the early dynastic period. Ian Shaw's take on Menes seems to be that he is a fully legendary figure, likely a mis-reading of a place name that appears on jar dockets associated with Narmer and Hor-Aha. He also says in passing that Menes' 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. Thanatosimii's take is that Shaw "has a tendency to accept newer theories as fact which have not necessarily yet convinced the entire Egyptological establishment". Any thoughts on the topic?
Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neferneferuaten

Hi,

I've just seen the hieroglyphs in the Neferneferuaten article – do you happen to know some reliable sources where we can look up the correct version? Right now it says "nefer-nefer-Aten", with at least two nefers missing, and the nefers precede Aten's name which is unusual IMO. Also, I thought the prenomen was Ankhetkheperure, though I guess the -t ending could be left off...

regards,

– Alensha talk 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rationale for fair use

I think the better formatted rationales are less likely to be challenged. I already have had my own face deleted twice. The first time I was told if I am in the photo, I couldn't have taken it, so I can't be the copyright holder. The second time it was my school photo, and I was told the photographer owns it, so if someone wants to delete it, they will. The best advice is to save your articles off Wikipedia as I do at Pages.Google.com and Base.Google.com. See here for a well formatted rationale: [1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there -- I saw your message to me asking me whether or not I had noticed any change with regard the use of fair rationale images on Wikipedia. I would say that while the policy has not changed, it does seem to be more rigorously enforced these days. On the whole I think we may be seeing consolidation within Wikipedia, as those who may have previously edited are moving on to other aspects of things, such as checking the copyright validity of images. Unfortunately in many cases I ran across people who simply flag a problem but don't always leave adequate instructions as to how to bring things up to snuff. Luckily most of the images I have shot have been of ancient artifacts from various museums so from a copyright standpoint I am in the clear, but a few album covers I had scanned and uploaded fell afoul of fair use restrictions. I had to let some go before I sorted out the proper justification process for it. Best of luck, and happy holidays! Captmondo (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ramesses & Star Trek

Dear Fabian, here's what I found about the parents of Ramesses IX in Dodson & Hilton's book: on the basis of the naming of one of his sons, it has been suggested that his father might have been Mentuhirkhopshef B (son of R III), and his mother may be Takhat, whose only title in her tomb is "King's Mother". (She was buried in the same tomb with Baketwernel, who might have been the wife of Ramesses IX.)

Yes, I'm a trekkie, but I only like TOS and TNG. DS9 is fine but I prefer Babylon 5 to that one. I could never really get into VOY and ENT. I'm eagerly anticipating the new movie, but it will be very hard for the actors to live up to the expectations. For most fans it will be hard to accept that new actors play Kirk, Spock and the others. – Alensha talk 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Battle of Kadesh Quote

Hi. Concerning your comment to me on the inclusion/exclusion of extensive quotes. As that is a point of "philosophy" rather than fact, I'll just try to trigger a discussion of it on the B. of Kadesh discussion page and see if it gets any commentary from others. There was one minor point, however, that doesn't need to be included in such a discussion, so I'll address it here for you: the translation in ANET wasn't done by Pritchard, it was done by John Wilson. Pritchard was the editor of the book. This isn't meant to disparage the translation. Wilson was also a highly respected Egyptologist. It's just a minor correction. Cheers. Publik (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your most recent comments: Thank you for your reversion on the Mursili III article. I haven't been perusing the Hittite kings much lately, as nothing was changing. As for my status; I attended graduate school studying this stuff, and then went and got a job that pays. I've got a lot of the sources used in these Wikipedia articles sitting on my shelf, and a lot more in articles piled up in a filing cabinet. I enjoy keeping active in this stuff, and try not to get too grumpy about it. I have mixed success there.

One historical summary that I haven't seen is Tyldesley. (Egypt isn't actually my field of interest, Hittitology is.) I'm a little ambivalent on this work based upon some of the citations I've seen used from it. But I have to be cautious here, since I haven't read it. However, I'm sure it's better than the online military "history" articles that get frequently used. Those smoothly mix fact with error with opinion which, if you aren't familiar with the sources, you would be hard pressed to sort out.

On your final note, I have seen the bloated Ramesses II article. Kudos on recognizing the importance of references! The Battle of Kadesh section is simply an old version of the B. of Kadesh article that got cut and paste into Ramesses' bio. It certainly doesn't belong there! However, I'd just go in there with a machete and cut the whole thing out, write a very brief summary concentrating on how the battle is relevant within his reign, and direct readers to the Battle article for the details. This would probably set off an edit war that I don't have the stomach for. I'll let the Egyptology fans handle that one. My philosophy, though, is to think like a haiku - convey the thought in as few words as possible. I'm horrible at it, but that's my ideal, anyway. (For example, I don't even like the long-period background for the Battle of Kadesh, as I think the article is about the battle, not about the history of Egyptian imperialism in the Levant. I think all of that could be wrapped up in about two sentences, and then point to some relevant history of Egypt article. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority opinion here, so I've left it.) Cheers. Publik (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, only to tell you that we might start an "election" of the best battle section, it will be "my" version against "Egyptzo's" version. Super Knuckles (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the article was kinda of cut off because we used a version that didn't have historynet references, and we have been adding some info, and re-adding some of the "lost" info. Also thanks to the imrpovements you did to the battle section I wrote, those small words you change actually make quite a difference, for the better. I'm also having some work, but once I'm able I will try to add references or even new info to the article with my new source the Mark Healy's book, Ramesses - Battle of Kadesh. Cheers Super Knuckles (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archiving

I just used the old cut-and-paste routine. The archive page could be User talk:Leoboudv/Archive 1, for example. This is called a user sub-page, and you can have any number of sub-pages for different purposes, such as sandboxes, places for draft articles, and talk archives. Just cut and paste the text to the new page and add a link to the archive on your main talk page. You can also add the appropriate archive templates on the sub-pages and an archive box on the main talk page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Peoples

Thank you, but if I create a new article it will not be a stub because I will include a long introduction and prelude to battle. The description of the battle and prisoners in well depicted in Ramesses mortuary temple (it is also the longest hieroglyphic inscription known to us) where we see many bound prisoners defeated in a land battle that occurred not at Magdol (most likely location of the sea battle) in the Delta, bot somewhere near Gaza in Palestine. The pharaoh dispatched squads of soldiers at once to the eastern Egyptian frontier at Djahy (southern Palestine, perhaps the Egyptian garrison in the Gaza strip) with orders to stand firm at any cost until the main Egyptian army arrived. Once deployed, the Egyptian army then had little problem in slaying these enemies, as was depicted in the reliefs at Medinet Habu. However, the sea fleet of the enemy was much harder to beat, what makes those two battles so diferent. Most of the literature that I used mentions those two battles seperately and with great difference because onely the sea battle is cattle the delta battle because it did happen there whereas the land battle happened in Palestine, a very different landscape and location. Scholars believe that the battles described at Medinet Habu were not one coherent event, but were actually small skirmishes between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians at different intervals that were conflated in Ramesses' account into two grandiose battles. Some even concluded that, due to the vague manner in which the northern enemies were described, they could not possibly represent one force, and were probably never joined into a clearly defined confederation. The reliefs depicting the land battle show Egyptian troops, chariots and auxiliaries fighting the enemy, who also used chariots, very similar in design to Egyptian chariots. Although the chariots used by the Sea Peoples are very similar to those used by the Egyptians, both being pulled by two horses and using wheels with six spokes, the Sea Peoples had three soldiers per chariot, whereas the Egyptians only had one, or occasionally two. The land battle scenes also give the observer some sense of the Sea Peoples’ military organization. According to the artistic representations, the Philistine warriors were each armed with a pair of long spears, and their infantry was divided into small groups consisting of four men each. Three of those men carried long, straight swords and spears, while the fourth man only carried a sword. The relief depicting the land battle is a massive jumble of figures and very chaotic in appearance, but this was probably a stylistic convention employed by the Egyptians to convey a sense of chaos. Other evidence suggests that the Sea Peoples had a high level of organization and military strategy. All this information (in other words) will be included in the article. Cheers! Egyptzo (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. As I always say: the more information and details, the better. However there are still many informations being lost in deletion in Wikipedia. For example: almost all the information about the Battle of Qadesh was deleted from the article about Ramesses II, without being merged into the article about this battle, so some details are now lost. I have tried to put it into the article about the battle (so that we do not lose some precious details and information), but some users have put up a resistance and continue deleting them. Even the article about Ramesses the Great is too much reduced now, although there are other articles about ancient people such as Julius Caesar, twice as long. Egyptzo (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I was also thinking about something like that. It will probably not be a short article because we will also include pictures descriptions and an infobox. Thank you! Egyptzo (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I have just made a link in the article about Ramesses the Great, to the video about him on YouTube[2]. The reason I do not mention my references is because I have learned much from such numerous documentaries, rather than literature. Egyptzo (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC

Hi there, I would just like to thank you for the scans that you have sent me by e-mai. I did not reply earlier because I have not been looking at my internet mail for a long time and have just seen it an houer ago.Egyptzo (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tutankhamun

See Tutankhamun#Name. In his case, the titulary was so long I made a separate table for it. I did this a few months ago. It might be a good idea, though, to put some text like see below in the box to direct the reader to the appropriate location. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hittite commander

Hattusili consistently and repeatedly gave credit to his brother Muwattalli for defeating the Egyptian king. Further, Hittite kings are known to have led their troops in battle. In his Apology, he mentions leading all the Hittite troops, but "Hatti" can refer either to the kingdom overall, or to the narrower confines of the Hittite core land around Hattusa. It is safer to conclude he led the troops of his own vassal kingdom along with the troops of the core of Hatti. Anything else would require strong evidence. Publik (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(Erh, by the way... the "his" of the Apology is Hattusili III. I forget that things like that might not be apparent to everyone.) Publik (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kadesh

What happened is that I discovered that huge amounts of it were copyright violations from taxman's article on Historynet, and as it was more or less impossible to take them out piecemeal, I reverted to the first version before the historynet stuff. Obviously this cut out other stuff which I have slowly been replacing. I'm not sure how good Healy is, and I find Tyldsley slightly sloppy at times. What is actually the source for the 2nd set of spies being beaten? I don't see it in the Egyptian texts, maybe I haven't read them carefully enough. And, as Goedicke doesn't think Ramesses was trying to capture Kadesh, I've been trying to think of a way to work in his opinion. I took out the bit about the 2nd set of spies as it was copyvio and was planning to replace it. Egyptzo has had 48 hour ban as it's been discovered he has been copying and pasting for a huge amount of his edits from various sites and forums. Have you looked at the article's talk page?Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedantic of me probably but she also calls the Shasu 'Bedouin'. They aren't (as I've pointed out in a footnote), they are nomads and that shouldn't be synonymous with the Bedouin, who ride/rode camels. It makes an unwarranted and unnecessary assumption (probably following writers with a Biblical bent). I'd still like to find the source for the spies being beaten though. I'm wondering if it isn't an assumption from the frieze. There's a discussion at User talk:Publik you might want to read.Doug Weller (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pharaoh infobox image size parameter

About the pharaoh infobox image size parameter: there is a default size set, it is something like 150 px or so, so when no image size is given, the template uses this standard size. One can also put in a custom size using the ImageSize parameter. It is important to note that the syntax will not allow you to put in the letters "px" but only the number you want (eg "250" but not "250px") or else the parameter will get messed up. I made the change on Pinedjem I here. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the Hyksos

Hi - I noticed you removed a JSTOR link saying it didn't lead to a readable article. Is that what you meant to do? Actually I guess the ref should given the article's details, but it doesn't have to be readable immediately, just accessible, so I'm a bit unclear as to what you meant. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herihor

I really don't know anything about this, but here is what a friend says, although you probably know this all anyway:

In 1997, in Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1997. Die thebanischen Gründer der 21. Dynastie. Göttinger Miszellen 157: 49-74 The author placed Piankh again before Herihor and argues that Pinnedjem I and Herihor are close contemporaries, defending his view against a number of counteropinions. The chronological consequences of the order Piankh - Herihor for the XXIst Dynasty were considered against the objections raised by other scholars.

Also in the same year, Otto Egberts examined this position in Egbert, O. 1997. Piankh, Herihor, Dhutmose and Butehamun: a fresh look at O. Cairo CG 25744 and 25745. Göttinger Miszellen 160: 23-25. In this article, the author considered the ostraca CG 25744 and 25745, both from the Valley of the Kings, which are drafts of letters to Herihor and Piankh. Though thought by Cerný to be both of the same hand, namely the Scribe of the Tomb Butehamun, the writing of the article /pA/ shows letter CG 25745 to Piankh to be actually written by Butehamun's father Dhutmose. This seems rather to corroborate the order Piankh - Herihor.

In 1992, Andrzej Niwinski gave a compelling timeline for the intertwining of the reigns in Niwinski, A. 1992. Bürgerkrieg, militärischer Staatsstreich und Ausnahmezustand in Ägypten unter Ramses XI. Ein Versuch neuer Interpretation der alten Quellen. In I. Gamer-Wallert and W. Helck, ed.s, Gegengabe. Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut: 235-262. Tübingen: Attempto Verlag Niwinski's argument is summarised as follows, from the AEB: The author started with discussing the problem of the year dating after the /wHm-mswt/ era in the tomb robberies papyri written in the reign of Ramses XI. This era was proclaimed on day 1, 1st month of akhet in his 19th regnal year, which began on day 20, 3rd month of shemu, the day of the accession to the throne. It was meant to mark a break with a painful recent past, together with the oracle for Herihor giving all power into his hands. All the relevant events referred to in the tomb robbery papyri must have taken place in year 18 or the beginning of year 19.

The hardest was the civil war in the struggle between the high priest Amenhotep and viceroy Panehsy representing the royal government and army. The author's explanation for the "war against Amenhotep" is that Panehsy, the most powerful person in the Thebaid, set up a military coup by his own decision and without royal support. Amenhotep may not have been killed then, but helped by the king, without gaining back his former position, however. A source of conflict was Amenhotep's accusation of atrocities by the Nubian soldiers of Panehsy against the Theban population, whereupon Panehsy received the royal command to leave Thebes and to travel south.

Nine months after the war had started, Herihor's army dispelled that of Panehsy, the later enemy of state, to the south. Again two months later the /wHm-mswt/ era was proclaimed. Thebes was under martial law owing to the dictatorial power of Herihor, the continuous menace of the Thebaid from outside, and the reconstruction of the land. The trip of the high priest and general Piankh with an army to Nubia served the purpose of peace negotiations with Panehsy rather than that of a campaign. Panehsy, buried in Aniba, can be considered the founder of an independent Nubia.

The last years of Ramses XI witnessed a coup d'état by the Lower Egyptian army, after which the king was discarded. In this coup three non-royal generals played a role: Herihor, Smendes and Piankh. Piankh's son Pinodjem married into the royal family, Herihor engaged himself in creating the Theban theocracy, and Smendes became head of the "State of Amun in the North," sanctioned by an oracle of Amon and the legitimacy of queen Tentamun. The royal palace in the capital Pi-Ramesse was unapt in such a situation, and Tanis was founded as a new centre of power. Ramses XI may not have left his capital at the introduction of the wHm-mswt era in Thebes; he may not even be buried there. Herihor completely overshadowed him, and actually functioned as pharaoh. I've got nothing to add I'm afraid. Doug Weller (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ancient Egyptians

You might want to check this, User:Egyptzo is back editing.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He's busy at Battle of Megiddo also (and on something Croatian, the Battle of Grobnik field that I can't decide what to do about as (1) it's legendary, not historical and (2) he insists on putting personal opinion in.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramesses V

You might want to check my edit about his death, I didn't understand the head wound bit and deleted it, but I added a reference.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Battle of Grobnik field was not mentioned is because we know very little about it, and there can be an influence of modern politics as well. There were no large centers around the battlefield or literate people that would record such an event. Rijeka was at that time a small unimportant settlement so most people could not record such an event but if went remembered in their memory for centuries. Most of the literate people and monks were living in Slavonia or Dalmatia, not close to Grobnik, so much about what we know about the Mongol invasion comes wrom the writings of Toma Arhiđakon, who lived in Split. This last and final defeat was just one in a serious of defeats that the Mongols were facing in Dalmatia and Kvarner, not being unique, so it was not the onely thing to talk about in that time.

The fact that Ramesses V died from smallpox is just one theory (although the most accepted one) as the scars on his mummy and face previously thought to be from this illness, can be just imbalming resin. The same thing is with Thutmose II, who is thought to have died from a skin desiese or heart calcification, but could very well have died as a result of a deep cut on the side of his neck, which he could have recieved in battle.

While talking about Tutankhamun, it seems rather odd that an 19-year old would simply die from a fall from his charriot, especially because he died in early February - winter. The Ancient Egyptians did knew how to cure even infections which some ancient papyruses such as the Edwin Smith Papyrus clearly demonstrate. Infection death was sometimes common for poor people not pharaohs(living gods). And when an infection killed those people it was mostly dental, resulting from very bad teeth. Look at the remains of the workers on the pyramids at Giza and you will fing that many had their limbs amputated, and they did not recieve infection because the wound was covered with honey. Anyone interested in the death of Tutankhamun should watch Assassination of king Tut of read Who Killed King Tut?: Using Modern Forensics to Solve a 3300-Year-Old Mystery (with New Data on the Egyptian CT Scan) and his view would change. It is sad that the bones inside his scull were broken before, but loosened during embalming, so that is why we can see them not mixed with the embalming fluids that were placed in Tut's head. The same thing about the fluids and bones was already noticed in the older x-rays, but this scientists had a different opinion. A blow to the back of the head (from a fall or an actual blow), caused the brain to move forward, hitting the front of the skull, breaking small pieces of the bone right above the eyes, but not loosening them. The earlier x-rays also revealed a dense spot at the lower back of the skull that was interpreted as a subdural hematoma that calcified over time and led to death. Even if you exclude the possibility that Tut was struck in the head, he could been poisoned, which is also much more likely than a death from infection. Egyptzo (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inarus

If you want an article analysing Ctesias on this (and Thucydides), email me from my talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow Mathematical Papyrus

Yes, he is. He is "the second" V. Struve. Namely this one. Cmapm (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating article on him. Maybe I'll expand it somewhere in the future. Right now I'm a little bit busy, because I'm describing orders and decorations of Barclay de Tolly displayed on his portrait in the Winter Palace - quite a different topic :) Cmapm (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Leoboudv, thank you for your kind words! The point is that I had read a lot of articles, in Wikipedia in particular, and my English got better a little bit :) I do my best to improve articles here, although I have significantly less time than I used to. You can feel absolutely free to ask me for any help or clarifications in the future. I wish you and myself a happy sailing in the world of knowledge. Best regards, Cmapm (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Image upload

Image uploaded here: Image:Neferefre Abusir Pyramid.jpg. They seem to have changed the upload form over on commons; the way I used to do it was to simply copy/paste the entire description page on the new file upload, then just change out the specific link pointing to the image page. Do you have an account over on commons? You have to have an account to upload a file, and then you could simply copy and paste the image descriptions if you need to upload a file. Hope that helps Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khasekhemy.jpg

Dear Sir,

Yes, I indeed do "read the information before I delete the picture" and have done so probably thousands of times. This image was uploaded with a restricted license - which are almost automatically deleted upon upload and verification of the 'bad' license - Upon upload you should have received this message:

If you did not create this media file but want it to be used on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may replace this message with one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

Given the website in question, you could upload it as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0|Jon Bodsworth at http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/contact.html}} as the attribution is pretty clear at that site for this type of license. SkierRMH (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright free images

Do you know what tag I should attach to an image if I access it from this site at egyptarchive.co.uk: [3]? The author states explicitly they are copyright free. I checked the 'index' section and he has an impressive collection of images. One was used for king Neferirkare Kakai here: [4] I have never uploaded an image onto Wikicommons and this is a unique case. How many sites say they feature copyright free images? Not many, I suppose.

BTW, I did notify Mr. Bodsworth that I used his image for pharaoh Neferirkare Kakai. The previous image of this king's pyramid was badly marred by the presence of a person in the picture. Any help you can give is appreciated on approaching copyright feee images. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You may find you get a quicker response in future to questions like this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
You can use {{PD-release}} and place a link to that contact page on the image description page. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Websites - (re: Alexander Courage)

Dear Leo,

This is two part question: 1) Rich media sites and 2) Spam sites.

First read:

Wikipedia:Citing sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:External links

Specifically read:

Restrictions on linking:
For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
  1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
  2. Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. Wikipedia's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.

First: Rich media:

Because Wikipedia is a global information database, users from around the world connect through a variety of bandwidth options, rich media sites, like YouTube, may not be appropriate for some users, so, to level the playing field, try hard NOT to use those sites as your primary source. They can be used as a secondary source when it is hard to find a good source. And seeing come out of a persons mouth, like Dick Cheney saying in 1994 that going to Iraq would result in a "quagmire" is a good example. So, try not to, but sometimes you have to.
B) Contributors who mainly just add external links are spammers. Wikipedia:Spam They are trying to get the pageviews up, and/or sell what they are selling, on their site by linking here. A user comes here, sees a link and goes to a site that they normally would never have found because the site (often in a third world country) is to cheap to pay Yahoo!, Google, or MSN. Additionally many of these sites contain harmful viruses, spyware and the like to hurt users computers and the Internet at large.

Once you start looking for these sites and not just at what they say, you'll start to see them. It is a forest for the trees thing.

So, 1) Consider the source of the contribution of the link. 2) Scrutinize the link and try to figure out where they got their content from. 3) Check the site for copyright citations (if there are none be suspicious)

Hope this helps. IP4240207xx (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright free

Dear Stifle, This image was made by a contributor who attached the copyright free tag to this stunning quartzite statue of pharaoh Amenhotep III--the father of Akhenaten. [5] The picture is another copyright free image from egyptarchive.co.uk.

Do you know how I would create this specific CF tag in the picture? I assume it would be {{pd-XX}} but I don't know the exact words are for the two XX's. Or would public domain be good enough? I'm sorry to disturb you...its just that I'm an amateur at uploading pictures to Wikicommons. Thank You from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
{{PD-old}} (for works out of copyright where the author has been dead for over 70 years),
{{PD-Art}} (for photos of old paintings and art out of copyright),
{{PD-ineligible}} (for trivial work)
{{PD-USGov}} (for work by the U.S. federal government),
The tag on that page is {{Copyrighted free use}}.
If you create an image yourself and want to release it to the public domain, use {{PD-self}}. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Description: Poster for Port of Shadows 1938.


Source: http://filmsdefrance.com/FDF_Quai_des_brumes_rev.html


Rationale for use on wikipedia: 1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject. 2.The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. 3.The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. 4.The image has been published outside Wikipedia; see source above. 5.The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. 6.The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. 7.The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title. 8.The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself. 9.The image is used in the article namespace. 10.The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder.

Resolution: The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.

Replaceable?: As a film poster, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the images from the movie poster would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.

Compatibility with wikipedia?: Use of the film poster in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. I was out of town all this week and I haven't been following along. Zerida has made a lot of good contributions, so I hope whatever the problem is can be worked out. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Process for listing at AfD

The whole process is outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. It's all explained thoroughly there. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the AfD. But FYI it's generally discouraged to change the formatting of others' comments (even if the spelling is wrong or whatever). I intended for the word to be un-bolded because I prefer to think of that comment as more of adding to the discussion rather than voting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sobeknakht II

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sobeknakht II, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Merhotepre Ini. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)