User talk:Llywrch

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Feel free to leave comments -- I like to see feedback to my contributions, even if I don't like what I read. However, I don't always respond to comments here, so I may not know when this page gets too long. Please alert me to any such warnings.

And carefully consider any comments you leave here: I won't delete them. Your comments will remain for all to consider, unlike some military records.

Update: well, I guess I hd to break my own rule. I removed some comments from a mediation I'm handling from this page in order to keep peace amongst the parties, not because someone insisted on making a spectacle of herself. I don't intend to do this again.

---

Six degrees of Wikipedia

Hmm: is there an experiment, akin to the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, to see if one can get from a given article in Wikipedia to any other article in 6 clicks or less?

Just in case you're still wondering (though I'm sure you found it long ago): Six degrees of Wikipedia at Kate's Tools. On a bored night I finally managed to find two articles seven links away, but it's not easy... — Asbestos | Talk 10:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess people rarely look at user pages. I just randomly came here after following up several threads between various users. Glad I could help! — Asbestos | Talk 16:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manetho

Sorry when I found the template I was like a kid in a candy store- and with so many addtions, verifications, and worst of all programming I became tired very quickly. He's so important that I wanted him in the template and when I found that he had been commisioned by the Ptolomies to write I took it as an invitaition to put him there. However-- and I have no objection to removing him or placing him at a more apropriate location. P.S.- Slap me if I'm to nosy but your page is 35kb-- just incase you want to archive, or not. -JCarriker 07:23, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Near Eastern chronology

I wonder if you might give your impression of whether it would be best to try to synchronize our ancient chronologizing. If our list of pharaohs is to say that Ramesses II began his reign in 1279, then shouldn't our article on him do so as well? Shouldn't our article on Muwatalli II also reflect that dating? Shouldn't our article on the Battle of Kadesh say it was fought in 1274 BC, and not in 1299 BC, as it currently says? I don't want to simply assert the correctness of what are, of course, tentative dates, but we should at least try to be consistent on this, shouldn't we? I think some sort of basic project to try to synchronize all our ancient near eastern chronology would be in order. What do you think? john k 04:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Responded to on John's page. -- llywrch 16:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. Do you think perhaps we should start a wikiproject on this subject? john k 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I may want to hold off for a while on this, as well. I've got my comprehensive exams coming up, and really shouldn't be trying to coordinate what would be a major effort just yet. After May 12, I should have a fair amount of time on my hands, so I'll contact you, and various others, again about the subject. john k 03:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Chrissy_Snow

Are you sure it was on the main page before? If so, can you remember when it was? Mgm|^(talk) 07:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't. I'd appreciate it if you (Llywrch) are going to make statements, at least back them up. I just created that article. You can see the history. Thank you. Mike H 08:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mitanni, Hurrians, Hanilgalbat

You wrote :

you attached a merge tag to this article; however, the Hanilgalbat, Mitanni/Maitani and Hurri section of this article argues that the 2 articles are different topics, & should be kept separate. Until this the points in this article are at least discussed, wouldn't it be wiser to delay this merge? -- llywrch 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I still feel like there is too much duplicative information between the two articles (kings' names etc.) There are also some inaccurate assertions (e.g., that Hurrian is an Indo-Euro language. I don't have time (and probably lack the expertise) to do the merge myself in any case. I felt though that the issue should be raised. --Briangotts 17:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:

I agree with you that there is needlessly duplicate material between the two articles. However, before they are merged, the subject should be discussed; that was my point. (And I was trying to express it in a manner that was not accusatory; I'm sorry if you felt my tone was otherwise.) -- llywrch 18:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. You have valid points. I agree with you that there should be discussion. --Briangotts 20:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Just letting you know that I have nominated the article you reviewed for me at FAC. -JCarriker 07:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kayla/Kaïliña article/s

I move we merge both to Kaïliña, and copy/paste the Talk from Kayla to Talk:Kaïliña. Notifying you since you've participated on the Talk page at either or both of the articles. Tomer ^TALK 03:45, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Llywrch, thanks for supporting me over the Usenet kook issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Awlad Kenz

Thanks for your improvements to the Makuria article, and also a general kudos for your many much needed additions to our African history section. I've never seen the name Awlad Kenz before, but the description makes them sound very much like the Banu Kanz. I also believe that both Banu and Awlad can mean people of so I feel confident enough to make a redirect. - SimonP 17:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zagwe dynasty

The source I used is: http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Ethiopia/zagwe.htm, part of the Royal Ark project. I wasn't too sure about its reliability, but a Google search gave seemingly unrelated matches on several other sites. Because I found no contradicting, conflicting or questioning secondary sources, I gave the data the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I should have been more cautious. Aecis 20:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think it would be best if either one of us, or someone else, would put a notice in the article about the lack of consensus for the Zagwe dynasty. Perhaps an additional notice could be added giving a rough indication of each term for the respective kings, to the extent of "we don't know when they ruled, but they probably ruled roughly in this era." Aecis 17:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Geraint who fought at Gododdin

Oh, dear, people will keep asking you to show you're not making things up! :-) All right, I'm not sure where precisely I saw this name, but it was "rac" – it struck me because it wasn't a very usual spelling – it's meant to be a Middle Welsh version of rhag, i.e. Geraint for the South. (You'll know deheu from Modern Welsh deheubarth, even though the non-compound word's evolved into de.) As for where the mention came from, it may have been Gwynfor Evans' Land of My Fathers. I'll look. QuartierLatin1968 18:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of AD

Hi Llywrch,

Since AD stands for In the Year of Our Lord it doesn't make sense to have something like 4th Century In the Year of Our Lord. Of course it does make sense to place AD before a year as in AD 60. This traslates well. No problem with 4th Century BC; that does make sense. Hope I'm not being too pedantic. I can't remember what the style guide says about it. By the way, I'm an enthusiast for the use of AD/BC as against the dreadful alternatives of CE/BCE.

Arcturus 16:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Hi Llwyrch,

Could you take a look at the Roman Empire article, as I fear we may be heading towards an edit war. User Ephestion is extremely opinionated and is persisting in an extreme form of ancient Hellenic nationalism which is intended to downgrade the Latin-ness of the empire. The resulting intro as it stands is highly skewed, and he has reverted edits that I and others have made to redress the balance. Am I being OTT about this? Djnjwd 17:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, "over the top", I mean; as far as I can see, the intro as it stands has been so laden with Ephestion's idionsyncratic point of view that it needs a complete rewrite (which he would probably revert). But I wanted a second opinion as to whether I was overreacting. Djnjwd 19:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Things aren't getting any better at the Roman Empire: an anonymous user (almost certainly Ephestion) has reverted all of the recent sound revisions and continues to do so. Can the page be protected in a decent revision? Djnjwd 00:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx

By all means, comments are more then welcome, I did put some links to this in mainspace as well. How do I access the mail list? Feel free to sent my proposal to the mail group - I will be offline for 24h. When I get back, I will compile a proposal for village pump based on responses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coss. abbrevtnz

Dear LLywrch, I am a user from it.wiki, trying to translate the list of consuls in the ancient Rome, but as long as praenomina are involved I can recognize them in any good Latin grammar, but I'm stuck when facing filiations... How am I to read

f.
M.f., T.f., Q.f., C.f., P.f., L.f., A.F., M.f., K.f.

etc.?

If I find e.g. Publius Valerius P.f. Poblicola II Should I read Publius Valerius Poblicola, son of Publius, consul for the second time or how else?

I shall cherish any line written by your keyboard...

Edoardo (Orbilius Magister) You can write in my discussion page...

Hatshepsut

WikiProject Ancient Egypt is supposed to have Hatshepsut as our example article. I'd like to rework and expand the article so we can finaly nominate it, similar to what I did with Elagabalus. However I would like yourself and Hajor to review it and give me your opinions as such I want to make sure you'll be available in the near future before I start working on it. Also I'm considering starting up a WikiProject on Ancient Rome. Interested? -JCarriker 19:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: UNMEF/UNMEE

Howdy, I thought it was "UNMEE," thinking that the Es stand for Eritrea and Ethiopia. I'm used to seeing it this way in news reports, such as these (assuming this URL will work). Also, if I remember correctly, I saw an SUV that had "UNMEE" on the sides when I was in Addis (it was over a year ago, but I think I would have remembered being puzzled by UNMEF). I didn't know that about the French abbreviations, though. Have a nice holiday weekend! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Hi again, my wife is originally from Adama (hence the article), where we had our wedding. We were in and out of Addis a few times, like for a day or two at a time. I probably wouldn't have seen a UNMEE vehicle at all, as we were in the middle of the country, but I wanted to see the AU building (the old OAU). We saw the SUV nearby (which also means that someone must have driven there all the way from the border). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 2 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)

Ethiopian towns

Thanks for drawing my attention to these issues - it's great to get feedback on some of my African geography articles.

• Hayk, Ethiopia - It seems to usually be spelt Haik, so I will move it. A Google search reveals quite a few references to the town.
• Shire, Ethiopia - it seems that it is known far more often as Shire than as Inda Selassie. While a move would be possible, I wonder if Shire Province (or Syre or Sire or Syre Province, etc) would be a better title for the other topic? Warofdreams 5 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Shana Alexander, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yuya

Thought you might be interested in this article I started. --Briangotts (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• The speculation about Joseph was in the Winsten book that I cited. When I get a chance I will take a closer look at that section and see what else I can tease out about his life and whether the theory can be expanded. Since you worked on the article about his daughter you might have some interest and possibly info that I'm not privy to.. --Briangotts (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Elves and Welsh...

Well, I don't personally (it is on my list, though), but Sindarin is based on Welsh ;) .

Oh, and on the subject of the conflict with DreamGuy, would you side with me if push came to shove? I wouldn't normally be so paranoid, but past experience has told me that he is a stubborn (and ignorant) one, and I know it will get blown out of proportion as he won't accept such a small thing as the definition of the word "mythology", and I'll need to establish consensus. (I've lost to him before over this same issue, and I don't plan to do so again, so we can't go to the admins. They will sympathise with him if myself, User:AI, User:Gabrielsimon or User:Dbraceyrules throws the first punch, as we have a history of "harassing" him.)elvenscout742 23:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

I have pretty much finished with my work on Hatshepsut. Please review the changes and tell me what you think. I'd like to nominate it before the end of the week. Thanks. -JCarriker 07:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Space opera in Scientology doctrine

Thanks very much for your peer review comments. The article has now been submitted for consideration as a featured article - if you'd like to comment on it please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space opera in Scientology doctrine. (It's been modified a bit since peer review.) -- ChrisO 10:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yuya on DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Yuya, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

VFD

Hi, you voted to keep Authentic Matthew because you said that the article was no longer original research - the original research having been removed. However, all that was removed was the duplication of large chunks of source text.

The topic is "what was the original form of matthew". This is already discussed at Q Gospel, synoptic problem, markan priority, two source hypothesis, AND Gospel of Matthew.

What actually exists at Authentic Matthew is the claim that the original version of the gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is also claimed to be the same as Gospel of the Nazarenes, and Gospel of the Ebionites.

This claim is supported by no-one outside the article's creator, and is a thesis badly strung together from misuse of parts of the aforementioned articles. None of the article's references support it (they support the aforementioined articles). The claim that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and Gospel of the Ebionites, is near universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics, as wrong, based on an error Jerome made because he didn't have enough access to these sources. This article is entirely the original research of the author of it, and although the title exists elsewhere, the content exists nowhere else whatsoever.

Is it possible for you to re-contemplate your vote? ~~~~ 08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Replied to on -Ril-'s Talk page. -- llywrch

Part of your reply was:

This article reports a POV, which was held by Jerome, not the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Whether the POV is "correct" or "incorrect" is irrelevant; as long as it limits itself to reporting the substance of the claim, & who claims it, then I feel it is acceptible content for Wikipedia. And while it's been several months since I looked at the literature, I believe a number of scholars have also reported that this was Jerome's opinion -- so it is not a case of original research.

But the point is that Jerome's position is almost universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics (including those of extreme religious and non-religious bias, as well as the more neutral), to be wrong. Not only that, but they believe that Jerome held it only because he didn't have enough information, and that he didn't hold it as an alternative to any other theory. I.e. Jerome didn't hold it as a rival theory to what we now regard as accurate, he just held it as true because he didn't know of anything else.

It would be like having an article about "scorpions commit suicide when threatened too seriously, e.g. by fire". They don't. Ever. It's a myth (caused by scorpion's cold bloodedness going haywire under high heat, causing them to have random spasms - their poison is NOT toxic to themselves, and even if they deliberately stung themselves, it would do nothing). Note, this is not the same as an article about "it is a myth that ....".

Authentic Matthew is presenting someone's unintended error due to lack of info as a genuine, and rival, theory, presenting it as fact, presenting it as if it is the same as the modern theory (it is completely different, and opposed to many of the points), by deliberately misusing terms from modern theory (see the articles themselves) - terms and theories Jerome did not use because they didn't exist until after 1800.

P.s. it has already been merged, twice, the sockpuppets (check their edits) of the article have repeatedly restored the article afterwards. ~~~~ 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Llywrch, this seems to be part of -Ril-'s MO--if you look at the "oppose" votes from the previous VfD, you'll notice that he went around spamming the pages of everyone who voted "keep" with the same thing. Tomer ^TALK 22:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The post of 19:31, 26 July 2005, is entirely, and specially written, for Llywrch's consumption, and none other. As is the following one~~~~ 08:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ril apparently doesn't understand that what is posted where everyone can see is de facto available for everyone's consumption; everyone can read the posts here, & everyone can respond to them, whether I want them to or not. Which is the reason for my policy that, with few exceptions, I do not delete posts on this page. -- llywrch 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Phlogiston was a theory supported by a large number of reputable scholars. There are none supporting the content of Authentic Matthew. Jerome is notable, but not everything he says is notable or deserving its own article as a result, otherwise we would have an article on "Salissa is an attractive lady, but her boyfriend is a fat traitor, and that new fashion for red sandals is vile". And it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to present that as a theory of good standing, rather than something Jerome personally thought, especially when everyone else thinks that Salissa looked like the back end of a horse.

The fact that there is no-one else involved in creating the article, that it is defended with an army of (obvious) sockpuppets, and that no-one can anywhere else find the content, illustrates that it is original research. ~~~~ 08:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Years Survey

Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested.Trevor macinnis 03:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Makuria

I have just listed Makuria on peer review hoping to get it up to FA standards at some point. I know you have worked on this article, and have also done considerable work in this area, so your input would be much appreciated. - SimonP 13:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

What you have mistaken for BE/AE confusion is actually Canadian English, which is of course itself just a confusion between British and American rules. - SimonP 23:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I thought Canadians spoke American English. Or did you lot finally dig a moat to separate yourselves from the USA, made your own continent & put an end to the embarassment of being confused with us? ;-) -- llywrch 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A few years ago we decided the moat idea was too expensive, so instead we decided to simply add lots of extra 'u's to our words. - SimonP 02:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Years vote

Please also vote for this option, given the date preferences issue:

• January 31 - Event 1
• January 31 - Event 2

Thanks! :) -- mav 15:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut FAC

I have finally nominated Hatshepsut as a FAC, please voice your support here. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I have been nominated for adminship. Hope you will weigh in at [1]. --Briangotts (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Briangotts (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Myth & Mythology

I'm puzzled about the reasoning for your edits to Mythology, namely that mythology is not used more commonly to denote a collection of myths than their study. At Talk:Mythology, Paul August & I listed 6 different examples of Mythology used to indicate a collection; I could provide more, if needed. However, I didn't see you providing examples of this word being used in the sense you champion. Can you provide enough examples -- say 5 or 6 -- of "mythology" used in the sense of the "study of myths" to confirm that this usage is as common? -- llywrch 01:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And I disputed several of your so-called examples as you reading what you wanted to read out of them. Your claim to have not seen me provide evidence is faulty, as I posted replies there covering this. And note that my change to the article does not say that it is not more common, I say that it is also used, which is undebatably true. Why even fight over how common it is? Seems like you are purposefully trying to advance a POV statement and totally unwilling to accept a good faith neutral statement. DreamGuy 02:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

thats not asnwering the question.Gavin the Chosen 18:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(NOTE: this conversation started on DreamGuy's Talk page. Since I will be responding there, let's keep all contributions there also.)

Huh?

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut you wrote "I'd like to suggest that Carnildo, as an exercise, attempt to collect a dozen non-free use images for any one personage or event from more than a few centuries ago." I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but why would one be seeking "non-free" images? Or do you mean to say something about "fair use" and typo'd? In any event, most images related to something this ancient should be (under U.S. copyright law, which is what is relevant) public domain: if the image was published in the U.S. before 1923, it is inherently public domain. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joe -- yes, that was a typo: I had originally typed "public domain or free use", then tried to change what I wrote to "non-fair use".

But in response to your point about "most images related to something this ancient", this was something I was surprised to learn once I started looking into the matter: there just isn't a lot out there, either encumbered by licenses or free. For example, I was only able to find a total of two illustrations relating to the Battle of Chalons: a map drawn in the last 30 years, & a rather fanciful engraving of Attila the Hun riding his horse on the battle field. It doesn't help that there is much scholarly uncertainty over exactly where this battle was fought.

In my experience, on one hand the vast majority of books prior to WWII are not illustrated; of those that are, most pre-1920 photographs are too poor in quality to be worth the trouble of scanning, & until some point in the mid-1950s most archeological objects & structures were illustrated by hand drawings -- which I feel qualifies them as original creations & are exempt from this loophole. I am forced to conclude that this is one of those cases where the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act is hampering free knowledge. But if you can prove me wrong about how many free images there are out there to be collected, please do so; maybe I've just had lousy luck. -- llywrch 18:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Huns: few images, not a lot of artifacts. Egyptians, Romans, etc.: far more to be had.

There are some gorgeously illustrated history books from the early 20th century (though usually with drawings, not photos).

Also, where the artifact is 2-dimensional and old, U.S. copyright law makes it more or less impossible to own an image of it. Museums try to claim copyright on these all the time, but I don't believe anyone has ever won in court with such a claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do actually have a few nice old (old enough) history books with some good pictures, but I have only a crappy scanner, myself. You don't live that terribly far from me; some time when you are headed to Seattle or I to Portland, I'd be perfectly happy to lend things to you if you have an interest in scanning. Or if you know someone here in Seattle who would be interested in doing this, that would be fine with me, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Abdi-Heba

Thought you might be interested. --Briangotts (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, I am embarrassed to say I don't know where the trans. is from. I had it written that way in my notes (I am working on a novel on the period). I assumed I had gotten it from Moran, but if you say it doesn't match I may have cribbed it off the internet somewhere. I will go back to Moran and rewrite those translation sections ASAP. --Briangotts (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Translations should be fixed now. It's not 100% faithful to Moran (I eliminated the brackets and other items that interfere with easy reading.) The choice of words is Moran's but in a few cases I have changed the spelling. The notes now say translation is adapted from Moran. (This from Briangotts, who forgot to sign his name.)

Amarna Letters

Could you please have a look at the work of MichaelMcAnnis - start from Talk:Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1 and the two other articles referenced at the top of that talk page. It is totally outside my subject areas but I am sure that his work will never be suitable for Wikipedia. VfD seems too crude a tool to use against someone who is obviously putting in a lot of effort and whose heart is obviously in the right place. -- RHaworth 05:39:10, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

My bad

I didn't see that you had voted in support of the Hatshepsut nomination, I thought I had been left out on my own. I appreciate your support, despite the nominations failure. Now I guess we should address MGM and Joe's concerns and annoy the rest of WikiProject Ancient Egypt into reviewing the article and supporting its next nom. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go eat some crow at Wikiproject Ancient Egypt. Again thanks. -JCarriker 11:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jew slaughter

I hope there's no offense just because we disagree on this. Zoe 05:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

hittite

I think I'll answer your pedantic question here....:)... You're right with your differentiated spelling, but I was in a hurry, and I've got problems with transcribing my "german" knowledge into the english one anyway (let's take the names of the egyptian pharaohs: there is a massive difference there already, and to take Hattusili, in german transcription it would be Hattuschili, and see Schuppiluliuma)...thx for your comment; happy editing! Lectonar 05:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in again, but just to come back on the Hittite Grammar you mentioned: you wouldn't remember if it was the one written by Hrózny? As far as I know, this one has been translated to English by now...Lectonar 07:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Asrat Woldeyes

Thanks for your careful Internet search and contribution to the VfD discussion on this article! Its good to know that the VfD process does succeed in rescuing important (but incomplete) articles rather than just generating silly POV arguments. I have made a first pass attempt at wikifying the existing article, recording the Internet links you found and 1 sentence statement of notability. Since you seem to have some knowlege of/interest in Ethipia I would be delighted if you could continue where I have left off. Thanks again! Cje 11:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work, both of you!  :-) Tomer ^TALK 21:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Port district

I was wondering if you know anything about the governmental bodies known as port districts. I am not sure if it is just a Washington/Oregon thing, of it they exist all over. See Talk:Port district for some references that I have found. Thanks, Cacophony 05:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[immagini de Chirico]

This image and the other one by De Chirico AREN'T in the public domain. De Chirico was Italian therefore copyright lasts for 70 years after his death and he died in 1978. His name is recorded in the OLAF catalogue of the Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE) which means his works are protected by copyright. Could you provide evidence that this two works are in some ways in the public domain? Titti Restituta

I appreciate your concern, but I did not upload this file, nor any of the other image files at Giorgio de Chirico. I see that it has an entry at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, where one editor suggests it should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. I don't have any special input upon this matter, nor have I editted this page on EN in almost a year; I've never editted any article on de Chirico in any other language. Lastly, I can't find a user page for you either here on EN or on IT (where I found this image, which I assume you meant to link to above); who are you & why did you leave this message on my page? -- llywrch 20:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ethiopian nomination at VfD

Howdy Llywrch, I've held off on voting for now, but I did add some comments which I hope will be of some use. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think the nomination was wrong, I'll go ahead and place a vote in a minute. I showed this to my wife, the names themselves could be real, but the people didn't look familiar to her at all. She thinks it was somewhat common for some emigres to fabricate or exaggerate claims to being descended from royalty, but that's purely anecdotal. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Shilkanni

This user seems to be inserting massive amounts of David Rohl POV nonsense into Ancient Near East articles. See the history of Ashur-uballit I, and that of Ashur-uballit, son of Ashur-nadin-ahhe, for instance. Any help would be appreciated. john k 00:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's okay to discuss Rohl's theories in general chronological articles, and of course also in the article on Rohl. But I don't see why Rohl's theories should be discussed in articles about individual subjects. I think this gives them a false sheen of credibility which they do not deserve. No Assyriologist disputes the identification of the Amarna Ashur-uballit with Ashur-uballit I. Furthermore, Rohl seems to be being explicitly dishonest in trying to doubt the identification - he doesn't mention anywhere that the Amarna Ashur-uballit's "father," Ashur-nadin-shumi, shares his name with Ashur-uballit I's uncle, who reigned immediately before Ashur-uballit I's actual father Eriba-Adad. I just find it hard to see how we can view Rohl's contributions, to Assyriology, at least, as being in good faith, and I don't think that we should entertain them in articles on individual subjects. I also feel as though the people least qualified to present Rohl's views in an NPOV way are Rohl devotees, which Shilkanni appears to be. However, he seems to have vanished, so perhaps the problem is abated. john k 18:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Edom

Thought you might be interested; I've done a major revision of the article Edom, including the latest research. --Briangotts (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Need Your Help

I recently found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black aces in which you voted keep. Around a day after Black aces I created Black Aces unaware the other page was there but my has a little more content except the links. I need you change your vote to merge both articles together. Ty --Aranda56 00:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)