User:AnnekeBart/archive4

Book Associates Pepi II Neferkare with Ipuwer Papyrus

"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 200876.216.196.209 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The text relates the Ipuwer text to the First Intermediate Period, I.e the period after Pepi II. It does not say that this is a text about Pepi II.--AnnekeBart (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If Pepi II is not associated with the beginning of the First Intermediate Period, then why do Rothe et al mention the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period when they are talking about Pepy II? The First Intermediate Period began with the 4.2 kiloyear event at the end of the riegn of Pepi II Neferkare.76.216.196.209 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate Period" Google Books76.216.196.209 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that an article from 1981 is more modern than an Encyclopaedia Britannica article from 2002?76.216.196.209 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Britannica is not reliable (which has been pointed our before). An actual research article gives a whole lot more information than some summary written for an encyclopedia. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Britannica is more reliable than Wikipedia. P.S. you are still ignoring the association of Pepi II Neferkare with the First Intermediate Period as you are still ignoring the association of Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus.76.216.196.209 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

These issues have been explained to you several times. You are clearly ignoring a whole lot of research because it does not meet your preconceived notions. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Note btw that there is a really nice Masters Thesis online [1] This thesis outlines the history of the interpretations of the Admonitions of Ipuwer and is quite enlightening. The Work by Fecht is said to be unassailable and it shows that the admonitions are consistent with what would have been originally written during the 10th dynasty. The idea that the admonitions had anything to do with the collapse of the old kingdom dates back to Gardiner, but the work by Otto, Barta and mostly Fecht show the material comes from a slightly later period. This thesis is from 2010. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly ignoring a whole lot of research because it does not meet your preconceived notions. Ignore this: "The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate Period" Google Books76.216.196.209 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a research paper and not anywhere near the level of a source I have quoted above. You don't seem to understand the difference between research and reference works. --AnnekeBart (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare‎

You need to be aware of WP:3RR. Please stay away from the article today - I'd hate to see you blocked. I've warned the IP so if he reverts you I'll report him. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But do please join in at WP:NPOVN where the IP is complaining. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the 3RR! I have added my comments at WP:NPOVN. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Snap!

You could only have beaten me to that by seconds, although I'd missed looking at the source you linked to on the talk page.. Yet another fringe edit. Clearly someone to be watched. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:-) I had noticed the edit earlier and thought the claim highly unlikely, but wanted to find an actual reference to refute the statement. Yes, yet more fringe ... --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Before you lord it over everyone

Before you lord it over everyone and use you godlike powers to reject anything that you disagree with maybe you should read the decision I added to explain why I changed that section. You are one of the reasons people hate Wikipedia. it has become a bastion of God-hating atheists who vomit their Presuppositions and ban or delete anyone that tries to add balance. Wikipedia is now a joke and it is because of narcissists such as yourself. I'm switching the changes back so ban away pseudo-god.--69.14.96.9 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this because I stated that "biblical" need not be capitalized and that referring to research as "liberal" is in violation of WP:NPOV? Please refrain from personal attacks and violations of WP:CIVIL. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have been working on hieroglyphs, for some years now, (and as well, on the Amarna letters). When trying to clue-in on the gaps of "not-understanding", how some words and phrases, must (obviously) be related, or have relationships with other uses, and the actual customs & practices of the Ancient Eyptian People.... I simply continue-on, hoping some realization, or word, or idea would help "coalesce" some understanding. My only comment to the critic(s) of 'biblical' and 'liberal' and the Capital g "god" people is this: you can't teach what you don't know. I invented the phrase, and after one year, (1 yr), I finally found that the answer is that: "it can drive someone to discover or seek the answer(s)", (whether they want to find the answer or not). The seeking is like the hieroglyph: List of Egyptian hieroglyphs by alphabetization#Q, the Ibis-feeding (hieroglyph)... Any discussion, by any "Modern-day-learned-Individual", was done far previously than by your critic. (Also confer with the debates: (7)... Debate between bird and fish... (Added after Re-Reading)((I AM: a "PseudoGod" Nadir; I do not live in the religion-game, (thank goodness)... if you don't get it.. atheism, and agnosticism, are still stuck in the religion game, (as well as Wikipedia's "Irreligion", and "Non-Religion")[Further: if your critic thinks he/she knows it all, try to get them to read my latest addition to the Superlative article](from the HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA)--Mmcannis (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Names of Akhenaten

That list of names is too long. The article doesn't need every possible English transliteration of the Egyptian that anyone has ever thought up. You also didn't cite a source for your assertions, either, and WP:NOR applies.

I thought I'd drop you a note before we go any further with this but the "list of every single name" has gotta go from the lede, which should to be brief and to the point.

If you feel strongly about it, we could certainly include it within the article. Do you want to do it? If you don't, I'll be happy to, but it's gotta be done. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather strongly disagree with you. When people look up an individual on Wikipedia, then these alternate spellings are important to point out. If anyone wants to do a literature search which is comprehensive, then spellings are rather important in this modern (digital) age. Furthermore I do not think it is up to you to start arbitrarily deciding how long a list of names is supposed to be. "I do not like it" is in no way shape or form a reason to tell others what to do. That is starting to look like WP:OWNS on your part. The lede is not meant to be brief according to WP:LEDE. It is meant to be concise. There's a difference. Quote: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." And even though the spelling is not exactly controversial, it is important to mention for the reasons I outlined above.

For as far as original research? No it's not. I have been around long enough to know better. The wide variety of spellings is a well known fact and easily backed up by appropriate sources. I will definitely put the inline citations in place when I have time (by Sunday I hope). --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not once did I say "I do not like it". Stop quoting something I did not say/write. I make no claim of ownership of this (or any) WP article and any argument to the contrary is specious, if not uncivil. My choice of the word "brief" (which is similar enough in meaning to "concise" to be found in many thesauruses) is irrelevant to the point, and the fact that you "rather strongly disagree" is no reason to overload an already-long list with useless trivia. The rule, BTW, is "source your additions", not "source your additions when you have time". (Why did you remove the "rarely" phrase? Are you claiming these are all common spellings?)

Nobody here knows you (or I) from Adam; you don't get to add text to the article just because you claim to have been around for a long time. Once again, source your claims. Unsourced information is may be WP:OR and that's the only way this effort works. The point is that the lede should contain a long list of every way someone has ever spelled the name. Your point about digital searches is valid in some situations, so we can include the list but it needs to either be shorter or elsewhere.

I'm trying to work with you (and any other interested parties) in a reasonable manner; I hope we can reach a civil agreement but, if you insist on being the final arbiter here, we'll have to get others involved. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have sourced the names in the mean time. The only reason I mentioned that I may get around to it later is because I am about to go out of town for business. I have no desire to be the final arbiter, and I have to say that is exactly the way your post came across. You did not enter a discussion. You merely told me how it was going to be. So lobbing allegation of uncivil behavior at me seems a bit premature on your part. I may have responded sharper than I normally would, but I found your tone belligerent and your comments about original research over the top and borderline insulting. As is the rest of your discussion to this point. I do not really see any attempt to work things out on your part, merely the statements of how it is going to be.

Your original post mentions ""list of every single name" has gotta go from the lede". Not exactly an opener to any discussion is it? So it looks to me as though you are putting yourself in the role of arbiter. The quotes about "I do not like it" were not meant as a direct quote from you, but a paraphrasing of what I saw as the intent of your comments.

I have no problem at all trying to come to a mutually agreeable solution or asking other people for their opinion. The latter may actually be the way to go. In principle I have no problem moving some of the discussion about the multitude of translations of the name to the article, but I honestly do not see any problem with the lede being the way it is.

It may be that we just got off on the wrong foot and somehow have managed to thoroughly irritate one another. Lets try to start over and see what the isues are and how they may be resolved in a more pleasant way. I am still going to be out of town and may not be able to respond quickly over the next day or 2. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The "wrong foot" seems to be exactly what happened. I do a lot of recent-change patrolling; it's amazing the amount of crap some folks will try to shove into these articles. Every time I try to explain something in three different places, though, it makes a mess, and that may well be what happened here.

I saw an IP-address editor had inserted "here's another way to spell it" without a citation. There were already several spellings there, so I reverted. The IP-address then reverted that with no explanation, which isn't how WP:BRD is supposed to work, so I reverted the revert, with a stronger explanation.

When I find destructive (or non-constructive) editing (which, BTW, I realize you were not doing), I do respond firmly to the person(s) defacing the encyclopedia. I've found, generally, that's the only thing that works. I think you innocently walked into the middle of this and, yes, what you did annoyed the heck out of me at first. I think I annoyed you, too, and I didn't mean to do that. It wasn't my intent to whack you with a stick; sorry 'bout that! You seem reasonable and knowledgeable; I do hope we can resolve this amicably.

I posted a response on the article Talk page. Please take a look when you get back and let me know what you think. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the disruptive edits. I have tried to keep an eye on the Egyptian themed pages myself to make sure that the unproductive (which is putting it nicely in some instances) edits are removed. LOL I have gotten some flack for that, as you can see in the posts above yours.

I'm glad we were able to work this out in a positive way. I think we are well on our way now to finding ways to incorporate the information into the Akhenaten article and improve it. I think CUSH's comments are worth considering as well.

Ignoring the initial "ruffled feathers" on both sides, I do appreciate your input and respect your opinion. And I am more than happy to find an amicable way to sort this out. I'm relieved to be honest this has been cleared up a bit. I really do not like arguments all that much. I will stick up for what I think is right, but ultimately it's consensus and cooperation I value highly. And clearly you do too. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Outline of ancient Egypt

I noticed you know a lot about ancient Egypt.

Please take a look at Outline of ancient Egypt and see what you can do with it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have glanced at the page and it looks nice. I have some suggestions and when I have time I will add them to the talkpage. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Cleopatra's Family Tree

Your argument was for Sources, however you have removed my edit and still included the existing unsourced ancestry information in the article. Perhaps the entire Ancestry section should be removed based on your argument? Ordibehesht22 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your tree was original research and contained mistakes. The tree you removed is actually supported by the pages linked to in the tree. Furthermore, the entire self published tree you had was removed from wikipedia all together. --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hatshepsut and Merytre-Hatshepsut

In the article, it says "[...] but it also is proposed that Hatshepsut and Thutmose II's daughter, Neferure married Thutmose III and bore Amenemhat before her death and that Satiah followed Neferure as the royal wife of Thutmose III." When I first read that, I parsed it as saying that both Hatshepsut (the aunt of Tutmose III), as well as NeferuRi`a (daughter of Tutmose II) were married to Tutmose III (which would be partially not the case). With this parsing, it looked like the author had confused KhnumetAmun-Hatshepsut with MerytRi`a-Hatshepsut. Perhaps rearranging the sentence would make it clearer? Something like "[...] but it is also proposed that Neferure, the daughter of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II, was married to Thutmose III [...]" (although, I would bracket her parents here with m-dashes, rather than commas, to emphasis its parenthetical nature, but that's just my habit). :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (original version dated 06:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

It had actually crossed my mind that this was what had happened :-) I recognized your name from other edits, and that made me wonder if the passage was unclear (that seemed more likely than you actually making a mistake). I looked at the sentence and had wondered myself if it should be rewritten. I think your suggestion is excellent. That is a much better way of putting it. Cheers --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy Easter, dear Anne! Michelle

Comment

Just as a curiosity, Kate Spence is a RL friend of mine. We have discussed why RL egyptologists do not edit wikipedia, so it was interesting to see you mention her name. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi there AnnekeBart! I saw your bibliography on your Userpage. That's a pretty cool idea, I think I'm going to make one too. I hope the issue at ANI gets resolved soon. BurtAlert (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I got the idea from Captomondo. I find it really helps me when I am editing and providing sources to my edits. Saves a lot of time :-). I do hope the ANI gets resolved soon as well. Thanks for your comments. --AnnekeBart (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI

No problems, more than happy to help! Regards, GiantSnowman 23:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it seems the page is now given a rest. It's pretty clear he is not open to any discussion which includes a reasonable exchange. See for instance [2]. I won't try to discuss things with with him again. --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Davide41

Hi, I've noticed that you've been having problems with this editor. From time to time I've also been locked in the same kind of edit wars and arguments which are countered by Davide41 with endless addition of lists and nonsense. I can only say that I fully empathize with you and that you have my full support (within reason) in any further disputes. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have tried interacting with him on his talk page, but he just deletes comments. He's clearly not interested in coming to any consensus. One of the page diffs shows that he is just not used to anyone arguing with him about history. [3] Seems to me like a recipe for disaster if you come on wikipedia with that kind of attitude. As he is deleting any discussions, it seems to me that the normal channels for dispute resolution are not available. I hope he fades away, and the disputes will be kept to a minimum. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your posting at WP:AC/N

Hello AnnekeBart. This posting is in the wrong place. That is a board which is reserved for the arbitration committee to make announcements. If you want general advice, WP:ANI is a better place to go. Arbcom is unlikely to take a case that has not gone through normal WP:Dispute resolution first. For example, a WP:Request for comment. I could assist you in setting up a request for comment if you want. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk)

Sorry about that! I was not quite sure where to go from here. I though someone at ANI had suggested ARBCOM, but I must have misunderstood the comment. I have removed the post from WP:AC/N. The RfC would likely center around use of sources WP:RS, WP:Consensus, WP:EDITWARRING? I think it may be the only way to go from here. I would like help setting that up. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that User:Davide41 was warned under WP:ARBMAC, and has agreed to stop editing Giulio Clovio? EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is someone else who is making the exact same type of edits. This time around it is User:Luciano di Martino. I looked for sockpuppet behavior. Meat puppet maybe? But all I can say is that Luciano di Martino took over for Davide41. Same arguments about secondary vs tertiary sources. Deleting inline references with solid sources, etc. --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Giulio_Clovio_again " Idiots. "
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Davide41 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure have a lot of nerve bringing up personal attacks. Considering the insults I have received, you should not be surprised I loose my patience at some point. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In the mean time Davide is continuing his uncivil behavior. We now have a rant against me at this talk page [4]. This is combined with deliberate deletions of any comments by me or just taking quotes out of context which I have pointed out is rude and unacceptable [5]

Deleting things he does not want to hear: [6], [7]

Oh well. Always something. Never a dull moment I guess.  :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For some strange reason, he has also brought this to my talk page. I know of no prior connection to either of you. -- Donald Albury 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Donald Albury. I looked at the contributions page for Davide41 and he has apparently posted this rant on the talk page of several (previously unconnected) people. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Anneke, I recommend you let this matter go for a while. Davide41's spamming of user talk pages might be seen as an unconventional way of trying to start a dialog. He's had enough warnings, so he knows what is expected. Since he is not trying to push his POV into articles at the moment, I recommend ignoring things. You made a few over-the-top comments yourself, and if any of them are still out there, you might strike them out. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I decided to let it go. I know I have responded more heatedly than I should have. I think stepping away from the entire mess is the best thing. I have been reading the dispute resolution pages and noticed that I should have both behaved differently (stick to the problems and possible solutions) and dealt with some of the issues in a different way. It was hard to keep a cool head at times. Thanks for your input and help. I appreciate it. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Davide41 left an unsolicited message that didn't seem to make sense to me. In any case, when dealing with easily upset people, my practice is to avoid upsetting them. See the Thin skull rule. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Anne, I heard about attacks on you and I am sorry for hearing that. I hope this is over. Would you please see something on Egyptian dreams? Your opinion is important for me. -- Michelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.232 (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Anneke, please see Egyptian dreams forum. Can you tell Lutz to not insult me anymore? He is reffering to the Bible as a fairytale and attacked me personally. Please remove one of his posts when he said he is sick of me (he said that in really disgusting manner). I know that you have your own ocuppations, but I don't know to whome should I say this. Thank you already.

I am not a moderator of the board anymore. I have already told him I thought his comments were inappropriate. I have decided to leave the board. You should take it up with Kevin (the admin). --AB (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I finished with Lutz and his opinions. But why do you went from the forum? Will you be here on Wikipedia every day and if you will, can we together edit new articles? Can I always ask you something, because now my focus is 5th and 6th dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.179.227 (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)