User talk:Thanatosimii

Due to adverse contact with a normal troll and an stalker extortionist deletionist troll, my wikistress has risen to all time levels, and I need a small break from contact with other editors. Established editors with whom I have contact and with whom have never had problems are fine to drop by if they need somthing, but I request no comments from people I don't know right now, and antagonistic editors will want to think carefully about bothering me right now. Note to the trolls, This means you! I plan on expanding some stubs and start class articles, off in the backwoods of wikipedia where I won't be bothered. Note: having engaged in profitable endevours elsewhere, much enthusiasm has been restored. Still stressed though.

January 2006 - September 2006
September 2006 - December 2006

Ahmose I is FA!

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

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

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

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

My one cent: Congratulations!

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

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

Thutmosis III

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

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

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

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

Missing Pepi II Pic

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

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

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

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

Serket

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Thutmose III

Yes, I'll keep in in mind whenever I'm around. Are you going for GA with this one too? -- Editor at Large • talk 07:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Email address?

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

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

Ahmose I Mummy Head for FA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back To Jerusalem

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

Personal Ancient Egyptian bibliography

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

Adding Hieroglyphs

Hi Thanatosimii

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

Can I get your reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use requirements

Hi, I've withdrawn my request for the removal of Image:Ahmose-shabti-head.png because of the restrictions the museums place but I still have serious concerns about your understanding of copyright policy especially in relation to Wikipedia:Fair use. I for one take the policy seriously and consider it important and hope you do likewise. Specifically, as I've noted in the talk there, fair use policy doesn't just cover legal issues. It requires that if images are resonably replacable then they're not allowed period (criterion 1). The tag is used for identifying and deleting images which are resonably replacable. Regardless of how long it takes to replace an image is IMHO largely irrelevant. The policy and practice is quite clear on this. Given the requirements the Brooklyn Museum places, I've come to the conclusion along with others that the image is not resonable replacable. But I think you'd find that many people agree in the absense of these restrictions, if an item is located in a publicly accessible place, especially in a city with over 4 million people, this is definitely resonable replacable. Therefore, in the absense of these restrictions, the photo should have been deleted. It doesn't matter how long it takes to come up with a replacament. As I've also noted elsewhere, while opinions for the policy vary, by personal opinion is by deleting fair use content which is resonably replacable we encourage others to come up with the content (rather then leaving the page a bit empty). Perhaps you don't agree, but regardless the policy is there. If you still don't understand, you can check out the policy and discussions in more detail. You can also ask questions. If necessary, you can contact me directly but you'd probably find you get better help there. Nil Einne 13:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, both your interpretation of that criterion and the not-policy page you were trying to make me abide by are truely the definition of absurd. Thanatosimii 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Amenhotep I

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

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

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

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

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

AzaBot 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Firstly, I most apologise if you were offended or felt harrased by any of my actions. This was never my intention and I apologise if I did anything to cause you to feel this way, although for the record, I must state I don't feel any of my actions were inappropriate. My views on copyright are well established, and supported by other wikipedians. However, I'm also deeply offended by your characterisation of me as a stalker, and a deletionist troll. If you had simply asked for an explaination rather then accused me of stalking, I would have explained my actions and we could hopefully have gone on our merry way.

For the record, I did not, never have and hopefully never will stalk anyone. I do occasionally check out the contribs of people who have made dubious edits such as vandalism. I don't consider this stalking and nor do other users. Also, when I check out pages, it's not uncommon I will see something that will interest me. In this specific case, I wasn't sure if you would check out the copyright issue and I felt strongly enough about it to mention it on your talk page. Visiting your talk page, as is not uncommon, I noticed some stuff which interested me. Specifically, I was interested what the dispute was with the user the other use. To check this out, I obviously checked out the other user's page. Upon reading, I noticed a comment which was IMHO incorrect. The BLP is another policy which I personally take very seriously, and a check through my contribs will show that this is pre-existing. I therefore attempted to clarify and correct the comment that I felt was incorrect. For the record, I did not notice, nor care who said it. It now notice it was you, but as stated, I did not consider this. I also noticed something else that interested me, specifically Back To Jerusalem. I have particularly strong views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and for this reason, I have imposed a voluntary blackout on editing articles related to this. I do occasinally make suggestions and like to read a lot of this issue. This title, interested me for this reason. I therefore checked out the article. Upon reading it, it was clear it had nothing to do with the aforementioned. However, I did have concerns about it's notability. Upon checking out the talk page, I noticed that someone else had mentioned this. I noticed the comment you had made, and in this instance I admit I was aware you were the one who had made the comment but this was not in my mind. I have discovered from my experience that stubs do have to establish notability and that in votes for deletion, the comment is made that the article should be deleted unless it can establish notability. Therefore, I felt it important to point this out. The fact that you were the one who had made the comment was immaterial in my mind. Therefore, it did not occur to me at the time that it would be perceived as stalking.

Given the unfortunate fact that in both instances, I was replying to you I can see why you might think it was stalking. But as I've mentioned, it's not uncommong behaviour of mine to read other pages and follow links that interest me and this includes talk pages. If I see something to be correct, or something in the talk page that needs clarification, I will do so. Also given the fact that by my comments were polite, (IMHO anyway) correct, added something to the conversation, and that it was only 2 instances, I feel you should have at least asked me about it before accusing me of trolling & stalking.

Nil Einne 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To help prove to you my views on BLP pre-empted any contact with you, check out Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (search for my name) and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Statement by uninvolved user Nil Einne Nil Einne 13:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to look through my contribs to show my normal behaviour to you. Unfortunately, this is not easy. Often, I will visit a page and then check out links that interest me. For example, I noticed that I made a comment on the Abyssinia, Henry talk page in my contribs. I know I visited this page because I was visiting M*A*S*H (TV series). I also visited several other MASH related pages but these don't show up since I didn't see anything to contribute. The problem here is I can't remember quite how I got to MASH. I'm pretty sure it wasn't pure random interest. Possibly, I was checking out Scrubs (TV series) and then somehow ended up at Medical drama but I'm not sure. Unfortunately, it looks like then it's difficult for me to show you that it is normal behaviour for me to follow links that interest me for whatever reason when visiting a page and that I mean nothing harmless by it. It's also obviously impossible for me to prove to you that I didn't notice you were the person who posted one of the messages I was responding to and in both cases it was simply unfortunate circumstances that it was you I was responding to. (Indeed, thinking about it more and going through my edit history, it's fairly rare that I will check out two pages and in both cases see something to respond to.) However, I do give you my assurance that this was the case. Should you choose not to believe me, that is your right and I've feel I've made a resonable effort to try and convince you about this but it's obviously something that's difficult to prove. If you were to analyse my edit patterns carefully, you might notice that I do tend to visit assocated pages but as I've mentioned, it's doesn't show up that well because I don't tend to edit that much. I won't be bothering you about this anymore. If you do have any questions, feel free to ask them but unless you wish to pursue this matter further with admins, it's probably best we leave it as is IMHO rather then trading words. (As I've mentioned, I can see how you might think I was stalking you altho I do think it was unresonable for you to come to conclusions given the way things were but that's my opinion.)

Nil Einne 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Since I think it best that we cut off contact, I don't want to go persue this matter much more. However I do think you will find that current policy is that we very harshly delete fair use content that is resonably replacable (i.e. which violate criterion 1). You might not agree with this policy but it is IMHO the way things are at the moment. If you don't believe me, I urge you to check out at Wikipedia:Fair use and ask at the talk page. As I've mentioned, whether or not the image can be replaced by your or me is largely irrelevant. The idea of resonably replacable is that it's likely that one of our contributors should be able to come up with a replacement image. I appreciate that you obviously don't agree with this policy, and it is a controversial one, but it is the way things have been going, at least for the past few months. It may be true it's not expilictly written as policy, but it doesn't change the fact admins have largely been following it. Obviously I strongly support this policy and you don't. My hope was two fold. I wanted to help you understand what the current policy was, and I also wanted to convince you the policy was a good idea. Clearly I have failed on both accounts. It appears unlikely that anyone will be able to convince you that this is a good policy, but hopefully you will at least be able to accept it is current policy. I consider this important because it will reduce reduce your wasted work in trying to upload and defend images that are undefendable under current policy and will also reduce our workload in identifying and having deleted images that are unacceptable under current policy. You should consider that if you don't realise that this is the way things are going at the moment, you're not going to be able to take part in the debate which is ongoing all the time. If I still can't convince you that it is current policy or that you should at least check out the page and ask users about current policy, this is unfortunate but I see no point in persuing this further.

In the absense of any questions etc you have to me, this should hopefully be my last contact with you for a while. Again I apologise for any offense caused although again, I repeat it was not intentional.

Nil Einne 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that admins are doing it does not make it current policy. Only consensus makes policy, and that has not been reached. It is foolish, petty, punative, and an obvious violation of WP:POINT. By objecting to fair use only on criterion 1 violation and thus moving to delete, you tacitly acknowledge that the image is indeed useful in the article. Thus your move to deletion in an attempt to extort an editor to move heaven and earth to replace it is a clearcut instance of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, however good intentioned it might be. Thanatosimii 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to leave this issue but I noticed something I forgot before. Fair use policy is in fact policy. Although the page is a guideline, the specific area were are talking about is policy. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. Specifically, I've highlighted the important bits:

Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

This is the policy and it's quite clear. The image must meet all the criteria. Criterion 1 is just as important as all the other criteria regardless of what you and other people may like to believe. Although we may have sadly ignored this for a while we shouldn't have and now that we aren't you have no right to complain. Indeed by your own logic, this has always been policy and the fact that we haven't been following it is irrelevant. So I repeated criterion 1 is policy, it is just as important as legal issues, and this has always been the case. The other criterion are irrelevant if the image doesn't meet criterion 1. Since it clearly says all, and your a native English speaker, I presume you don't have a problem realising when something says all, it means all. It doesn't matter if it meets 1 trillion different other criterion. If it doesn't meet one of the criterion it doesn't meet them all ergo it violates policy ergo it's deleted. It has always been the case if we have a policy, and the policy says something must meet all the criterion then it must meet all. The objections of you and others not withstanding. There is no point debating other matters if we don't meet one criterion since we must meet all criterion. I just don't know how to explain it any better. All means all. Not most except criterion 1. Not whichever criterion I want it to meet. It means all. And criterion 1 clearly says no image is available of COULD BE CREATED. It doesn't say one has to be available. it doesn't say you have to create it. It simply says could be created.

As I've said so many times, this is primarily about enforcing policy which is clear. Wikipedia is about creating free content. Always has been, always will be. If you don't share this goal, you really need to consider if wikipedia is the place for you. Given this goal, clearly it's better to have NO content then unfree content which can be resonably created as free content. This is what many of us believe. We dont' want to force anyone to do anything. Many people like me believe it helps but regardless, it's about free content. We don't want unfree (i.e. shitty) content when we can have free content. Period. Cheers and good byeNil Einne 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)