User talk:Rktect/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:EXODUS FROM EGYPT.png

Thanks for uploading Image:EXODUS FROM EGYPT.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of article talk pages

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as global warming for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. MastCell Talk 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ra mes ses

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ra mes ses, by 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ra mes ses fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

unreferenced article containing Original Research and non-existant items, made to further the opinions of the user who created it as factual information


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ra mes ses, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Measure

I wrote a message at Talk:Measure_(mathematics)#Recent_edits. It would be good if you could reply there. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kadesh

You are talking about User:209.244.42.97 right? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

Only way to resolve this issue, report to admin notice board. OhanaUnitedTalk page
There is already a long section there discussing a group of editors who seem to have a particular POV you may find familiar, so if you agree this is a problem add your name and his/hers to the list.

Rktect 11:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice the article Ra Mes Ses above being deleted by our good friend?Rktect 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

You have been adding information to articles (mostly those mention in stations list) that constitutes original research. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Your latest edits involved referencing your edits with a single link to http://www.goredsea.com, a holiday website. This is not considered to be a relaible source. You are expected to discuss major edits to article with other contributors on the article talk pages, and receive consensus before making such major edits. If you continue to add original research or poorly referenced to material to articles you may be blocked for disruption. — Gareth Hughes 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for failing to discuss your additions to articles. When the block expires, you will be expected to refrain from adding original research or poorly referenced additions to articles. Otherwise, you make be blocked again. — Gareth Hughes 23:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
07:33, August 9, 2007, Garzo (Talk | contribs) blocked #588573 (expires 07:33, August 10, 2007, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rktect". The reason given for Rktect's block is: "Inserting misinformation: has been warned repeatedly about original research".)
I have been adding references to sites which ask for them. References are not original research. I'm going to ask you to match this list or take the block off. In particular your claim that adding a map is misinformation. Click on the link and it takes you to a choice of starting points with detailed descriptions of the Red Sea coast. You then have the option of going to a street map of all the little towns along the route of what was the Exodus and is now some of the best diving in the world. In addition to that I have added References to the ANE. That makes your reason for blocking intentionally false and misleading. In addition you have repeatedly removed references from articles apparently because of your own religious POV.
The accusation of original research is ridiculous. I'm restoring pages that were blanked by another user and adding references that you apparently have never read or used. Rktect 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Work out the difference between references and a bibliography. A bookshelf impresses no one. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Work out the difference between a bibliography and a syllabus.Rktect 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures

I see you keep signing your edit summaries, for example here. Typing four tildes in an edit summary does nothing. Signatures are meant to be put at the end of comments on talk pages (like this comment, which I'm going to sign). Hut 8.5 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Number Theory

Hi,

Sorry for the delay. I misread your Archibald comment. Archibald is my great grandfather. I had been receiving several odd comments on his pioneer life. Please excuse my attempt at humor in responding as I did over one month ago.

Let's return to the foundational issues of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, as we discussed almost 10 years ago by:

Hi Milo, long as I have know you, (over a decade), you have been teaching me stuff; in particular unit fractions. I can remember you sending me posts to put up when I was moderating sci.arcaelogy. And how old do you think the foundations of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic can ber found? I say 2,000 BC, when: 2/pq = (1/q + 1/pq)2/(p + 1)

was only one of several ancient algorithms that exactly calculated unit fraction conversion of p/q. Nov 24, 1997

I entirely agree that qualifications for writing on subjects where you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who understand the subject matter is warranted. If the editor above is claiming 20 years of original research on these topics I'd be more impressed with that than the degree in history, but surely Archibald Gardener is a topic that every grade school student knows by heart.Rktect 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ten years ago I had not read the Liber Abaci, as translated in 2002 by Sigler, or the Akhmim Wooden Tablet, as translated by Hana Vymazalova. On pages 124-125 Sigler begins to describe seven Egyptian fraction conversion methods. As my blogs indicate Leonarndo de Pisa, 1202 AD, parsed seven Arab Egyptian fraction trading units texts written in modern Hindu-Vedic numerals. At the end of the Egyptian fraction era Leonardo used lattice multiplication , and not Ahmes form of multiplication. However, Leonardo did use five of his seven Egyptian fraction conversion methods that date to Ahmes 2/n table. Yet, Leonardos' division method remained unchanged compared to Ahmes.

Interestingly, my 2/pq = 1/q + 1/pq)2/(p + 1) method was not included in Leonardo's list of arithmetic operations.

Leonardo's 2/pq conversion method was simplier, as required by Occam's Razor (as Sarton and other History of Science scholars require). Leonardo used optimal and non-optimal Egyptian fraction conversions of vulgar fractions. Leonardo followed the rules set down by the Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll student scribe, rules that were also followed by Ahmes. Leonardo created multiples of vulgar fractions, often multiplying 2/pq times (p + 1)/(p + 1), thereby creating a larger vulgar fraction that was easily converted to an Egyptian fraction series. For example, Leonardo and Ahmes both converted 2/21 to a multiple of 4, or 2/21 x 4/4 = 8/84 = (6 + 2)84 = 1/14 + 1/42. Note that 2/21 = 2/(3x7), with p = 3, q = 7, such that p + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4.

Today I do not think that Ahmes formally used algorithms. Ahmes, and other Egyptian scribes, simply raised vulgar fractions to optional and non-optimal multiples of themselves, thereby adding needed divisors to solve vulgar fraction (by writing them as exacft Egyptian fraction series). A sense of algorithmic thought was presented by the consistent 2/n table patterns as I noted 10 years ago. However, upon closer review, Ahmes thought in simplier rational numbers. He converted vulgar fractions by using several simple methods. One method was the Hultsch-Bruins method, as twice used by Leonardo, as read by F. Hultsch in 1895. Another was the multiple method, the subject of the EMLR, and two of Leonardo's seven methods, as I reported in 2007 (yes, pretty late for a simple 1650 BCE idea).

The EMLR and RMP 2/n table detail several common methods that outline the ancient foundations of Egyptian number theory. Considering all the Egyptian mathematical texts, as understood by those that has used Egyptian fraction trading units for over 3,000 years, Greeks, Hellenes, Coptics, Arabs and medivels like Leonardo, the earliest form of number theory presents itself in several simple arithmetic operations.

Please note my Wikipedia bio. It suggests that 20 additional years, from today, may be needed to resolve the misleading additive and algorithmic debates that began in 1873. The Ahmes' 2/n table debate has muddled Ahmes' understanding of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. But in time, maybe 20 years, the 'fog' of classical additive views, mostly under-read by well meaning 1920's scholars, will raise.

Thank you for the excellent math reference (Lucas N. H. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient). I would add Oystein Ore, "Number Theory and its History", available from Dover, and follow the advise given by Carl F. Gauss. Gauss suggested: to understand an ancient mathematician, you must read the ancient mathematician's writings (or words to that effect). Guessing without context is not allowed. Given that Ahmes, and the other Egyptian scribes, used common units like the hekat, and the same hekat sub-units, the medical texts must be added as a mathematical text.

Best Regards,

MilogardnerMilo Gardner, 8/25/07

As an add-on, Please read Kevin Brown's version of this number theory topic, as noted by

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath340/kmath340.htm

Kevin and I consulted on several of these issues over 10 years ago. Many of his notes are still timely.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Had you read Kevin Brown's work previously?

Best Regards, Milogardner 8/29/07

Hi Milo
Yes I love Kevin Brown. Some of Kevins current should be included in your edits. I have a correspondence with another individual who is interested. I will email you to give you the contact, hopefully its still the same address, mine has changed.

2y^8/2y^6.34 (256/81) from the Rhind papyrus = 3.160493827 : good enough for surveying circular fields and I'm not sure how a non unit fraction ratio like 355/113 implying a Pi of 3.1415929203539823008849557522124 would be measured

Roman Pi of 3 '8 comes from a series of unit fractions that improves the value in much the same way as Pascals's triangle applies to Zeno's paradox.

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
3
3 + 1/2y^3 is 3 '8, = 3.125 : good enough for most practical measures
3 + 1/2y^3 + 1/2y^6 is 3 '8 '64,= 3.140625
For purposes of comparison(3 '7 = 3.142857143)
A Roman carpenter could approximate PI to 3 '8 or 3 '8'64 as easily as
an Egyptian carpenter could approximate PI to 3 '7 using their rulers.
3 + 1/2y^3 + 1/2y^6 + 1/2y^10 is 3 '8 '64 '1024 = 3.141601563
3 + 1/2y^3 + 1/2y^6 + 1/2y^10.01331 is 3 '8 '64 '1033.49 = 3.141592594
close to the 355/113 value (Pi ~= 3.141592654)

Rktect 01:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Egyptian carpenters, more than likely, used 3 7' for pi, an approximation that did appear in the RMP -- but not in the appropriate area. As we both may know, Ahmes used the doubling of a square method to find his traditional approximation for pi, possibly based on a long forgotten doubling method. Concerning Kevin Brown, he had changed a few address for his 1990's Egyptian fraction papers. As I find the updated URL's they'll be added to my posts. Best Regards, MilogardnerMilo Gardner 8/30/07

I never could find 3 '7 used in the RMP but I'm sure it was used. As for Kevin I spent a while lookin at his style and trying to figure out how anyone can have that wide a range of fascinating math discoveries. He raises unit fractions up to the level of continued fractions and keeps on going from there. I see he some times mixes methods the Egyptians could have used with methods I don't think they would have happened on, but maybe they did. Rktect 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevin's modern math has not intended to duplicate Egyptian thinking. In the 1990's, Kevin tested scribal Egyptian fractions and found them optimal in ways that modern number number theory has not been able to duplicate. To find 22/7 in the RMP you have find a translation that includes all 84 problems, with 22/7 being toward the end. It was used to split the number one by 22/7 x 7/22. Pretty near right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.16.207 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Kevin Brown isn't trying to duplicate Egyptian thinking but as you say found them optimal in modern number theory. As to 3 ' there is a problem 38 where 3 '7 times the container is required to fill the Hekat measure so that the scribe had to divide 1 x 3 1/7 (if a * x = b then 1/x *b = a)

Gillings chapter 19 p 205

Read Milogardner milogardner, and especially http://egyptianmath.blogspot.com to gain a wider view of RMP arithmetic operations, and their Egyptian fraction remainder answers. Gilling did not report RMP 82 correctly, nor any other set of problems that contained quotients and remainders, the basis of MK remainder arithmetic., Rktect 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Best Regards, Milo 9/2/07

The details of a 2007 paper would show that the Liber Abaci method generally raised 2/pq series, as reported in the RMP 2/nth table. The generalized method includes the several EMLR examples, stated as multiples of (p +1)/(p + 1). For example, Leonardo and Ahmes converted 2/21, and n/pq, to elegant Egyptian fraction by factoring 21 into p = 3 and 1 = 7, such that (p + 1) = 3 + 1 = 4, or applyinng the method to covertt 2/21; 2/21 x 4/4 = 8/84 = ( 6 + 2)/84 = 1/14 + 1/42.

I have noticed that you have gradually been improving the mathematical pages on the RMP, EMLR, and LA, to show the elegance of the unit fractions applications and methodology. (Thank you for noticing the added links to Wikipedia articles, and a few upgrades to my blogs.)
One thing that gets overlooked on a lot of pages is the application of the methodology. (agreed, such as the two-part and one-part hekat sub-units, written in exact remainder arithmetic.)
The Greeks continued using unit fractions to do their math right up through the Middle Ages because their application was useful as well as because the methodology was elegant. (agreed)
One thing that would be interesting to see would be the evolution from the way the Egyptians used them to the way the Greeks used them in terms of geometry. (geometry comparisons seem not not add much to the discussion (to me) since Egyptian geometry was arithmetic. Greek geometry stressed postulates. Euclid only wrote up one-two chapters on number theory, the context of Egyptian geometry).
Taking as example the Egyptian and Greek approach to determining the size of fields, surveying, navigation and cartography, how useful are the Egyptian quick approxamtions vs the Greeks formal proofs. I'm thinking that some of the earliest answers to that found in Arab mathematics eventually modernized the study of algebra. Another area would be as regards their use in solid geometry and the conversions of commerce from calculations of rectangular containers to cylindrical containers in analytic geometry, calculus, numerical analysis and the use of series such as your discussions of the Fibonacci series and what Gillings calls Pesu problems.

(Egyptian rational number arithmetic was exact during the Middle Kingdom. Egyptians and Greeks used approximations for irrational numbers like pi, with Greeks like Eudoxus and Archimedes developing formulae for many shapes. Egyptians tended to take slices of a geometric shape, like the MMP's truncated pyramid, and add up all the exact slices. One day Egyptian formalae may be found. For now, only arithmetic aspects of geometry have been reported. )

Rktect 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian and Greek geometry were not the same, as you have fairly noted. However, Egyptian and Greek remainder arithmetic, and unit fraction arithmetic, were almost identical. The main difference between the two arithmetic systems was that Greeks began to use lattice multiplication, thereby replacing the MK form of multiplication, a form of multiplication that Arabs improved upon.

Egyptian and Greek addition, subtraction and division were identical. In 2,000 BCE Egyptians may have been first to write proofs, in terms of the hekat, a form of math that Greeks heavily borrowed in their system of proofs. Fibonacci's use of the Hultsch-Bruins method only added a second subtraction step, and not the modern n-terms as falsely reported by Sylvester in 1891. Best Regards 9/2/07. Milogardner . Milogardneradded comments 9/3/07.

[edit] Battle of Kadesh

I have removed your references from the Battle of Kadesh article as they appear to be copied from http://www.bu.edu/anep/ANET.html. Please don't copy copyrighted material into wikipedia, please see WP:COPYVIO. Markh 20:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Both cites quote from ANET which I referenced.Rktect 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You copied text out of that website into wikipedia. Please don't do this, you are not permitted to violate copyright here. Markh 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, read the references. What I cited in the footnotes were quotes from the references. If you can direct me to where Wikipedia doesn't allow footnotes I will revert it myself. Quotations Rktect 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:COPYVIO. Markh 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I did, Please read the wiki quotation link above ...

Acceptable use of text Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

Rktect 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright enfringement in Nine Bows article

Your contributions in the Nine bows article seem to have been copied from [[1]]. Please don't copy copyrighted text into wikipedia unless you are te author. Markh 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable use of text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an elipses (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added") or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

Blockquoting, and referencing a websites, cites, from Breasted and others is not only permitted its encouraged. Many or most of the references come back to the same primary sources. I also used Tour Egypt and other sources to get as full as possible a reference to the names and spellings used by various Egyptologists. Rktect 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have asked for a review of the article, as it looks to me like many of these references are just copied from the page above. For example below is taken directly from the page, and don't look like brief quotations to me.
The nine bows
In pre-dynastic times the nine bows seem to have been native enemies rather than foreigners. Kings, and later pharaohs, were described as master of the bows. The nine bows were identified with specific peoples only from the Middle Kingdom onwards.
After the Second Intermediate Period the nine bows denoted exclusively foreign peoples: Naharin , Keftiu (?), Mentius (?), Retenu and others. Amenhotep III listed the following (their identification is somewhat speculative):
1. The Hau-nebu on the north-eastern coast of the Mediterranean
2. Shat, a people to the south of Egypt, near the third cataract
3. The Ta Shema
4. Sekhet-iam, western oasis dwellers
5. Ta Mehu
6. Pedjtiu-Shu who roamed the eastern desert
7. The Libyan Tehennu
8. Iuntiu-seti, a nomadic people, possibly Nubian
9. Mentiu nu Setet who were Asiatics found in Canaan and along the coast up to Ugarit
When the Libyan Meshwesh came into contact with the Egyptians they were added to the list, and later Assyrians and Babylonians were included, but by the Late Period the names of the nine bows had little to do with contemporaneous neighbouring peoples.

If the review says its OK, then please forgive my zeal! Markh 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request was rejected. I have no problem with your zeal but to make up for wasting my time with this, how about your researching the Nine bows yourself and adding to the article more information from the execretion texts and tracking down the copyright info for the various illustrations which give labels of prisoners and show their disctinctive appearances.

Theban mapping project If you take the time to Learn ancient Egyptian you can match the names given above the figures to the figures. http://img81.exs.cx/img81/4571/ancientegyptianethnographicmur.jpg egyptian ethnography Can you tell which one is the Libyan?

Rktect 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In the future it might be a good idea to check the sources given


I expect the Primary source source here is Amenhotep III, Breasted is the secondary source given in translation, and then after that it just gets repeated everywhere. top news

After the Second Intermediate Period the nine bows denoted exclusively foreign peoples: Naharin , Keftiu (?), Mentius (?), Retenu and others. Amenhotep III listed the following (their identification is somewhat speculative): The Hau-nebu on the north-eastern coast of the Mediterranean Shat, a people to the south of Egypt, near the third cataract The Ta Shema Sekhet-iam, western oasis dwellers Ta Mehu Pedjtiu-Shu who roamed the eastern desert The Libyan Tehennu Iuntiu-seti, a nomadic people, possibly Nubian Mentiu nu Setet who were Asiatics found in Canaan and along the coast up to Ugarit When the Libyan Meshwesh came into contact with the Egyptians they were added to the list, and later Assyrians and Babylonians were included, but by the Late Period the names of the nine bows had little to do with contemporaneous neighbouring peoples.

There is also Pritchards translation of Mrneptah's stele

The princes are prostrate, saying: "Mercy!" Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows [5]. Desolation is for Tehenu [1]; Hatti [2] is pacified; Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Isiral [3] is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru [4] is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Source: James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton, 1969., pp. 376-378.

Rktect 23:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't quote Breasted, or this other page, the whoel section is lifted straight out of [2] this page; the spelling, formatting, all of it, which you did exactly the same with the article that you just used as an example [3], from which "....Amenhotep III listed the following (their identification is somewhat speculative)..." is a direct copy. Search on Google for this string of words and you get the above article. 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a quote, a reference and a footnote. A quote is supposed to be exact. Its not lifted, its a small data rich section, quoted, briefly. A reference may just be author - title - date - publisher - isbn or it might include pages and a brief description of whats on the pages. The footnotes locate quotes, references, etc; in the article.
I generally quote even what I paraphrase. Any things I change get identified as changes.
Breasted and Pritchard have a lot to say about the Nine Bows being different peoples at different points in time. There was a lot in the article you mentioned speculating about Israel being an enemy of Egypt. I didn't include that because its speculative. I disn't get into the mistranslation of the Mrneptah stele, that's addressed elsewhere, but it makes a large part of that source useless. I did keep some of its points, for example the part about different names for the nine bows at different periods because who they are varies over time. (That's a paraphrase).
I referenced Baines and Ma'lek, Pritchard, Breasted, etc; in the Footnotes section at the bottom of the page, listed them among the references, and quoted them from one of the sources citing them whom I then referenced in the footnotes so anyone who waants to research this in more depth regarding conflicts with Nubia in the 12th Dynasty has some places to look.
The article has three of four lines and that's it. The intent is to broadly mention the people places or things being discussed and then give references to them.
The introductory sentence I wrote. Then there are a couple of quotes that list the Nine Bows. After key words you will see lists of numbers. The numbers refer you to the footnotes which are generally the points and cites from the articles I refered to. The idea is to give you as much information as possible about how you might further investigate the topic. Rktect 11:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respectflly, I'm trying talking to you

Please don't consider it argumentative to explain an injustice.

You said:

I have blocked you for 48 hours to give everyone a rest from your behaviour. Original research, argumentation, spurious complaints about those who oppose you, and frankly we don't need any of it. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about explaining why its my behavior thats at fault? Is it inappropriate to mention that Jerusalems history goes back to the period of the Amarna letters?

Take a specific example and say why you don't like the sources provided

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=next&oldid=141067794

Originally URU URU salaam KI (Jerusalem) was a fortified well with a nearby threshing floor where spice traders and perfumers bargained nubian gold for bitumen, naptha (napthali), frankincense, myrrh and the various oils and resins (benjamin) used in the embalming process at Luxor. Its existence goes back about a millenia before there were any jews. In the Akkadian toponym above [URU ___ KI] means place and [salaam] means peace. - Jerusalem and its surrounds are mentioned a couple of times in the records of the Egyptian campaigns against the king of Kadesh during the 18t and 19th Dynasties. During the period of the Amarna letters

This was simply blanked by contribs) See also See [[4]]

Just before that on the Administrators board, another person had pointed out how the contributions reverted had been extensively referenced, in one case were in fact the basis of an upcoming NOVA program and that the persons reverting had neither discussed the reverts nor responded to conversation on their talk pages.

The original reverts were tagged original research but with the sourcing above that would not make sense.

One user defending the action changed the grounds for the revert and said well then its WP:SYN. Respectfully, if adding links to the relevant Wikipedia pages is original research then whats the point?

That might almost make sense except that a revert of Bael Zephon for adding links to Bael and Zephrus has an A and a B but no C.

Discussion is an important part of consensus building. I made no complaint of people who reverted and discussed in some cases they just were unfamiliar with the topic and said they needed more cites which I provided.

See [[5]] Thats an appropriate way to procede in my view

Someone who goes to my contributions page and systematically reverts everything meets the Wikipedia definition of stalking and reverting.Rktect 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Looks to me like"... Speculation? Try reading WP:OR-SYN more carefully
The only connection to the above comments taken out of context, but generally regarding the inappropriate behavior of reverting references; stalking and reverting; reverting without discussion, reverting to censor something that's properly referenced and cited because the reverter doesn't like what it says, is an onjection to WP:NPOV. Is it your position that the above WP:NPOV violations are justified? Try reading WP:NPOV more carefully.
Regarding the bit about URU URU salaam KI as the Akkadian for Jerusalem and Jerusalem being in existence before Hebrew was a language, the discussion in the cited sources may be a bit technical but if you actually read the cites you should be aware its neither original research or a synthesis, just something you learn about when you study Akkadian. Rktect 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. You were editing disruptively, others said you were editing disruptively and you were. The onus is always with the editor seeking to include content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. You failed to do so, big time. You have been sanctioned before by ArbCom for tendentious editing and original research, it looks to me very much as if you have not learned from the experience. I see you have been blocked again since for exactly the same behaviour. I suggest you stop it. Now. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 :) Rktect 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Solomons T.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:2007061512.jpg. The copy called Image:2007061512.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, but not me

re: this note

Are very much to point. Replacing the semi colons with colons will correct the problem with the bold font, but the article itself has been destroyed by recent editing.

It no longer recognizes there is more than one Greek foot, (long, median, short) or references them to other trading partners standards, (Attic, Ionian, Doric, etc;)

The article before the recent editing links Greek measures to international standards, Mesopotamian, Biblical, Egyptian Roman, Central European, mentions the connections between lengths, areas, volumes, touches on the proportional relation between units and gives references.

This article doesn't differentiate between nautical units and land units, connect body measures to agricultual measures, reference or footnote anything. I encourage you to Wikify it as you see fit with links to other articles on measurement Rktect 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well that all sounds very good... but there is a reason I've been off wiki, and that kind of retrograde development is one of them. You're certainly right--much of that needs put back. But I'm a figment of your imagination... I just couldn't believe 'stadia' (per ancient geographers) was missing. Cheers! // FrankB 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention mia chillioi, stadion, stadium, mille passus and degrees; I have tried to save some of the deleted information on my user page, but have given up on trying to correct the newcomers. [[6]]. I'd be delighted to talk more about this by email Rktect 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)