User talk:Nefertum17

A belated welcome to Wikipedia!

You've clearly have been busy with topics related to ancient Egypt -- where your help is gladly needed. Just a couple of pointers to make your experience here more pleasant:

A group of us have organized a project to standardize names & dates of ancient Egypt on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Please have a look & leave some input.

As a result of this project, we (well, mostly me, since I've not had much input on my proposals) have decided to standardize the names of the ancient Egyptians after the forms found in Ian Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt -- although with acknowledged exceptions. (For example, "Ramesses" instead of "Rameses" because the first is far more common in English usage.) I've noticed that you've changed "Sheshonq" -- how it appears in the Oxford History -- to "Shoshenq"; what exactly is your reasonings? I admit, I don't happen to known whether the Egyptian original is properly shshwnq or shwshnq -- but an explanation in the proper place would help prevent future disputes. There have been nastier fights over less substantive grounds.

Lastly, take a moment & create a User page for yourself. Please tell us a little about yourself, or about your interests, philosophy, etc.

Feel free to leave questions on either my Talk page, or at the Village pump -- llywrch 00:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, Nefertum17. Your talk page refers to you as an Egyptologist with Syro-Palestinian archaeology training. Very similar to myself.... Out of interest, could you identify yourself by name on your User Page? Pjamescowie 05:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sais disambiguation

Hi Nefertum17, I have reverted your recreation of Sais as a disambig. Before this turns into the most ridiculous edit war ever, let me explain my reasoning. I figure that since there are only two Saises (hopefully) the most logical way thing to do is to make it a direct link to one of the two and put a disambig sentence on top on the target article. I made the redirect to "sais hopkins" because it gets twice as many google hits as "sais egypt". Nevertheless, I would have no problem at all with you moving Sais, Egypt to Sais, since it is a proper name, while SAIS is just an acronym. Cheers, — Banyan Tree 15:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Took the liberty of modifying your translation of Diospolis

This is my first wikipedia contribution; hopefully you won't consider it inappropriate.

Your article originally read In Greek this name was rendered Διοσπολις Diospolis, "City of God" ("God" here being Zeus, whom the Greeks regarded as a form of Amun).

In fact, Διος is merely the genitive singular form of Ζευς and has nothing to do with the Greek word for god, which was Θεος and whose genitive form was Θεου.

I also thought the phrase "whom the Greeks identified with Amun" sounded better than "whom the Greeks regarded as a form of Amun", which strikes me as backwards: if one god was a form of another god in the Greeks' eyes, I would have put it that the Greeks would have considered Amun to be a form of Zeus, not vice versa.

Ancient Egypt and Roylee.

Hi Nefertum. I don't know if you ever came across User:Roylee. Some editors have called the bulk of his edits in question because they consitute original research and seem to be written from a very Afro-centric POV. Roylee doesn't respond to people pointing this out at his talk page or anywhere else; instead, he often simply blanks challenges (check out the history of his talk page).

At User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee, some editors, including me, keep track of articles edited by Roylee and his various anonymous IP's. I am a linguist and as such am watching some articles related to language and linguistics — Mende tribe and Mende language, for example.

My question is if you maybe could fact-check his recent additions to Ancient Egypt and related articles (you might find some at the page referred to above). He has made quite a lot of edits to Egypt-related articles, either logged in as Roylee (talk · contribs) or anonymous as 209.150.67.45 (talk · contribs). To me, most of those edits seem bona fide, but I'm no specialist. As he has a history of editing fringe theories into Wikipedia in a self-referential way, I'm a bit afraid that unverified and unsubstantiated bits trickle down

Finally I want to stress that I don't like to do this sort of thing, and that blackening any editor's reputation is not my purpose. I'm only concerned with Roylee's editing pattern because he touches Wikipedia in its weakest spot: verifiability and reliability. — mark ✎ 08:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. I have run across Roylee's eidts before. At this moment I don't really see any problem with current articles as they stand now. I have seen the "Suez canal" problem in the past, and have tried to clarify it. May be I should just write an article about the ancient Egyptian canal and it will be resolved that way. If you have any specific items you would like me to review, drop me a note! —Nefertum17 09:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! — mark ✎ 10:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]