User talk:A. Parrot/Archive 4

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Winged sun shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shamanic Wisdom in the Pyramid Texts
Thanks for the reference to the Journal of the American Research Center ...  >  Vol. 42, 2005/2006 book review of Naydler's book in response to my proposed edit to the Pyramid Text Wikipedia page. It is a very good review which I agree with. My editing suggestion has to do with presenting the final points in the Book Review's last paragraph which deals with the non-funerary aspects of the Pyramid Texts as being "valid and important lines of enquiry."

Yes, I agree that "strong" is subjective and could be deleted from the reference.

I don't agree with the editor's reference to this question as being "fringe info". The book review mentions a number of other books dealing with this same subject as Naydler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texelar (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what the article should say about Naydler's book. It may not be fringe by Wikipedia's definition, because it cites mainstream sources and has had a not-entirely-negative academic reception, but it's certainly not mainstream. The Pyramid Texts article barely mentions the huge amount of mainstream research that has been done on the texts. As long as that's true, it's probably serious undue weight to mention Naydler. But a more fully developed article might mention him. A. Parrot (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jean-François Champollion
If you have time to take a look at my recent expansions of this important article your comments would be appreciated. I am thinking of this article as a possible GA candidate in the near future.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Karolina Olsson
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, but for the record, I only did a couple of minor copyedits on the article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling?
What does patrolling me mean? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AA._Parrot granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Senusret I: Possible edit by banned user?
Please see the new edit at Senusret I. This edit reverted my reversion of an addition concerning Osiris-Orion. You had also reverted at an earlier time. It may be that the new IP user (who has made 3 edits to date) is another sockpuppet of the banned editor Ararat arev., as you indicated when you reverted the earlier edit. In any event, it would seem the edit is still either wrong or out of context so it should probably be reverted. The edit adds Osisris-Orion son of Ra, which is the subject matter of some of the banned user's edits. I thought I would ask you to look at it since you know the subject area and are familiar with the work of the banned user. I assume this should be reverted again and perhaps the IP address should be reported. Thank you for looking into this. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Books of Breathing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page History of Greek and Roman Egypt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Amun page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=653935276 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F653935276%7CAmun%5D%5D Ask for help])

Deity vs. mythology
I'm not on Wikipedia much these days, though I hope to get back to editing more. Just glancing at an issue in which you mentioned me, I'd say I really detest page names such as Jupiter (mythology)—it really should be Jupiter (deity). Jupiter is not a mythology; he's a deity in a mythology, as well as in a religion and literary allusion and so on. One is distinguishing Jupiter the deity from Jupiter the planet, mainly. Leave me a note on my talk page with link if there's some place I could comment succinctly on this.

Hope you are well and flourishing on Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation
Hello A. Parrot,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Marge6914 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting other's edits
Please add an wp:edit summary so that others understand why you reverted. If there is a discussion or detailed description on why the information is being removed, you can add something like "unsourced, fringe, etc. see talk:Egyptian mythology ‎ ". Of course, you would need to add your explanation to the talk page, probably before you revert. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I replied to this message here. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted material on Amenardis I
Hello, I have the suspect that most of the article Amenirdis I has some copyright issues. In the article history I saw that the author of this material User:ProfessorStratosphere, was rollbacked twice by you, but he massively edited again. What do you think about his last edits? --Khruner (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The easier way probably better, although the links added by Stratosphere could be useful in the event that a willing user with access to JSTOR intends to expand the article. Should we put these in a "Further reading" section? Khruner (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Translations done!
You should have received the full translations by now, let me know if this isn't the case or if you have any question regarding the translations!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, ! Sorry if the Roman religious terms made that one passage tougher, but I can follow your translation of it just fine. Now if I can just find the time and the willpower to finish the half-written Isis article I have on my computer… A. Parrot (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Horus name and Nebty name
Hi. I just created these two articles and now I found several, pretty odd articles very similar in content, but... how to push it... I wish these to be deleted. Their quality is horrible, their refences very fragmentary and big parts of their content is redundant or concentrated too much on one subject. I could edit them, no problem. But I fear that would shorten the "problem articles" extremely! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which articles do you mean, ? Serekh, maybe? If they're really bad articles and nobody's paying attention to them, you can just delete the contents and turn the article into a redirect to whatever article covers that same content better. If you want to move some of an article's contents into another article, you have to merge them instead. If I saw the articles you're talking about, I'd be better able to judge which approach to take. A. Parrot (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are so right! The articles that worry me so much are: See? I would luv to take care of this matter. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two Ladies: Lots of blah-blah that somehow doesn't get to the point. It should be massively shortened.
 * Serekh: Same here.
 * Gold name: Missing!
 * Birth name (Nesw-bity): Also missing!
 * , I created two discussions about merging these articles: Talk:Serekh and Talk:Nebty name. I posted a note about those discussions on the AE wikiproject talk page.


 * I actually think that the information from Horus name could go into the serekh article, replacing what's already there. Remember, the serekh was an artistic motif as well as a hieroglyph, and it would be better to cover that in an article on the serekh than one on the Horus name. For some of the same reasons, I don't actually see the need to create articles on the son of Ra name or the nsw-bity name. Both ancient Egyptian royal titulary and cartouche cover those subjects. In my mergist perspective, it's usually better to have one or two medium-sized articles on a subject than split information among several small articles. If you want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of those names, you could certainly add more detail to ancient Egyptian royal titulary.


 * By the way, did you see my last note on your talk page? A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

But, buddy... I don't wanna merge them! Their content is not good enough to allow a merging! Menno... -.-" Listen, just let me do the changings and I will show you the results, ok? No merging! It's not about what you wrote, basically you are right. It's about certain other things... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I indeed got your note, but I fail a bit with finding the subject... Could you give me links to the sites you were talking about? Thanks!

I'm done with Two Ladies and Serekh! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also started to send you the translations. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you very much. A. Parrot (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Two Egyptian gods
Hello Parrot, I hope you are not too busy because I have a question for you: who are gods are Horus Qemaa and Matyt? I get that Horus Qemaa is just a variant of Horus so I can wikilink him to Horus but I have no idea about M3tyt, which appears in the name of an agricultural domain of Menkauhor "Matyt loves Ikauhor".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a goddess named Matyt in any of my resources, but there are a couple of references to Matit, which is probably a different transcription of the same Egyptian name. "The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat" by Henry George Fischer in JARCE 1 (1962), p. 7, says in a footnote that in the Old Kingdom at Deir el-Gabrawi "the lioness goddess Matit was worshipped along with the falcon god Anty". If Menkauhor's agricultural estate was in the region around Deir el-Gabrawi, it seems almost certain to be the same goddess.


 * Incidentally, the only other thing I can find about Matit is that she's another Eye of Ra goddess, like Sekhmet. The source ("Qedeschet. Genese einer Transfergottheit im ägyptisch-vorderasiatischen Raum", by Kristina Lahn in SAK 33 [2005], p. 214) doesn't seem to specify which era that information comes from. It's probably New Kingdom or later, because the Eye myth cannot be dated with certainty any farther back than that.


 * I can't find any mention of Horus Qemaa, so I guess you'll just have to link to Horus without further explanation. A. Parrot (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, regarding Matyt I do not know the location of Menkauhor's estate and I doubt that it is known with any certainty since the only attestation of this agricultural domain is a personified representation of it on the walls of the tomb of a priest buried in Saqqara North. I will simply add a footnote for Matyt/Matit with your explanation and link Horus Qemaa with Horus.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Prenomen (Niswt-Bity name)
Your thoughts? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time today to look at it, I'm afraid. The one thing I can say is that it should probably be moved to the simpler, more intuitive title prenomen (ancient Egypt). Then we can put Template:Main under the throne name section of ancient Egyptian royal titulary. A. Parrot (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sound indeed good to me. ;o) Maybe you better place a moval request at the discussion page? If I move the article then, every curious reader will see that the moval was done on request. Request;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll bother this time; uncontroversial moves don't really need discussion. Especially since I just received the approval of the editor who created the article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally unhelpful wipeout of section
Undoing massive sections as plagiarism, when it is referenced, and undoing massive sections which have direct references on the Horus article is wholly unhelpful and counter to wiki culture. Assist in editing sections, do not wipe out entire ones. It is this mindset that is driving people from working on wikis in any regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.6.120 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR Paper
Hello Parrot, do you have JSTOR access through the wiki library? I need the following paper http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000880?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents as a source regarding the attribution of two queens to Menkauhor. Could you possibly send it to me?&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've just e-mailed it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing thanks!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Menkauhor Kaiu Peer Review
Hello Parrot, I have just put up Menkauhor Kaiu at Peer Review to improve it before going to FAC (it is already GA), see here. Your input would be very much appreciated.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll see when I have the time to do it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian religion
Dear Friend, today I glanced to this article to find someything about the cosmogony and particularly the creation myth of the E. as I am doing some comparative work. To my dismay I found nothing about it, e.g. the ogdoads or enneads which came out of a flower. Could you please help in supplying relevant paragraphs? Thank you for your attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote the ancient Egyptian religion article long ago and there is a great deal I hope to someday improve about it. Nevertheless, I don't see a need to go into great detail about the various creation myths in that article. There's more detail in the section on the creation myths in Egyptian mythology. There's also an article on the creation myths themselves, which of course is the one that should have the most detail, but I wrote it when I was very inexperienced, and there's a lot of room for improvement on it. If you want me to point you to some reliable sources for your research, I can certainly do that. A. Parrot (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes please, thank you very much. I am particularly interested in the image myth of the flower, lotus or whatever.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The most detailed source for the lotus version of the creation must be Der Gott auf der Blume: eine ägyptische Kosmogonie und ihre weltweite Bildwirkung by Siegfried Morenz and Johannes Schubert (Verlag Artibus Asiæ, 1954), so I hope you read German. Talking about creation myths in general, the most basic source is Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts by James Peter Allen (Yale Egyptological Seminar, 1989). If you can't obtain it, his book Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (Cambridge University Press, in various editions) is easier to find and contains an abbreviated treatment of the same material, broken up into several essays at the end of the language lessons. A more detailed source for early creation myths is La cosmogonie égyptienne avant le nouvel empire by Susanne Bickel (Éditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994). Allen and Bickel do not cover the more elaborate versions of the creation myths that developed after 1000 BC, but this article gives a good overview of those later cosmogonies, as well as an extensive bibliography for them. A. Parrot (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your helpfulness. I can read German, very slowly, but I have no access to any good library, so I must rely on what is reachable through the web. The article you linked is quite informative, there is also a hint to the theme of the hidden cosmic egg (found in the temple of Khons at Karnak).Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anubis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Obvious sock there adding material from the Tut Family Project that doesn't discuss race. I was going to tell Paul Barlow but he's dead. Doug Weller (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my watchlist, though I'm not eager to wade into that fray. It's a shame about Barlow. I don't think I ever interacted with him directly, but he always seemed very sensible to me. I tend to avoid conflict, but I respect anyone who's willing to fight POV-pushing head-on the way he did. A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

source review
Any chance you could do a review for me too? See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, because I know I should review more at FAC than I do, but I don't feel knowledgeable enough for that. Looking over the sources for Menkauhor Kaiu was easy for me because I'm so familiar with Egyptology; I recognized most of the authors' names at a glance and knew they were reliable sources. I've never reviewed a film article, let alone an Indian film article, so I'd have only a vague concept of what constitutes a reliable source for that subject and what doesn't. A. Parrot (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About your email
The paragraph is now translated and has been sent to you. ;o) Btw: I'm confused abut the "cushion-like" object. As far as I know, this standard already appears on predynastic objects, such as the Scorpion-II.-macehead, the Narmer-macehead and some ceremonial palettes. According to T.A. Wilkinson, H. te Velde and N. Grimal it shows either the king's mummified placenta or simply the Royal throne cushion. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Big project
Hi. User Iry-Hor has recommended to contact you. Wanna take a look at this? It's a basic gantry for a new version of the article to the deity Seth. However, when finished and proof read by you and others, I'd like to move the article to "Seth (Egyptian Mythology)", because 90% of Egyptologists write "Seth". Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have a few comments:
 * Recent studies of Egyptian religion in the Roman period have shown that Seth was probably still worshipped as a beneficial god in some parts of the country, contrary to what earlier scholars assumed, so a rewritten article would ideally use sources that cover that. Religion in Roman Egypt by David Frankfurter says a little about it, as do other sources that I don't have: Olaf Kaper's PhD thesis Temples and Gods in Roman Dakhleh and Seth: A Misrepresented God in the Ancient Egyptian Pantheon? by Philip John Turner. General resources like The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard Wilkinson, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses by George Hart, and Egyptian Mythology by Geraldine Pinch are also useful for writing about any major god. Wilkinson's book has been translated into German, too.


 * I have no objection to spelling his name "Seth", but the title should not use the word "mythology". Mythology and religion are not synonyms. The title is Set (deity) right now, so it can just be moved to Seth (deity).


 * I've thought for a long time about how to structure articles about deities. I've settled on a system for writing articles myself, which is ultimately based on the Mythology/Iconography/Worship division that Wilkinson uses in his entries on individual gods. I haven't actually used it on-wiki yet (though my offline rewrites for Isis and Hathor are both more than half-written), but an adapted version of it worked pretty well for me when writing ancient Egyptian deities itself. An "origins" section, discussing how and when the deity emerged, followed by a "roles" section, with subsections for whatever that god's major traits are. Then sometimes a section on "relationships with other gods", if those relationships are particularly complex and aren't more easily covered in the "roles" section. Then "iconography", followed by a "worship" section that will usually have several subsections. I prefer to incorporate developments over time in how a god was characterized or worshipped into the sections on roles and worship, rather than having a separate section on history. If there's a section on the god's influence in Greco-Roman culture or in modern times, those sections would go next, but I'm not going to use the modern times section very often, because I strongly sympathize with the advice given here about how to treat pop-culture sections.


 * To make it easier to picture how this pattern would work, I uploaded the section headings for my rewrite of Hathor to the sandbox: . Obviously you don't have to follow that pattern when writing yourself, but I thought I'd describe it in case any of it seems useful to you. The one piece of hard advice I will give is that you probably don't need as many subsections in the history section as you have.


 * I hope that's helpful, and I hope the rewrite goes well. Real-life commitments have tied me up for the rest of the year, but I will be dedicating myself to article work much more in the coming year, so I may be able to help you more then. A. Parrot (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you for your long and detailed answer. Step by step: Don't worry or get hasty, ok? ;o) Take all time you need. And again, thanks for your support and help. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about the recent studies of the greco-roman era is indeed very interesting and important. Unfortunately, I don't know how I could get a hold on the literature. I'm not very wealthy, it already had cost me a fortune to buy the books of teVelde and Wilkinson.
 * Your proposal of the article move intrigues me. Ok, let's do that. ;)
 * I did long thougths about a basic and general structure of deity articles, too. ;) I hope you don't mind too much if I disagree about the structure in the Sandbox. My structure is based on which question any interested layman and reader would ask about a egyptian deity. I consulted family members, friends and even staff members of my favorite shops.^^ The result was quite interesting. I don't like the idea to follow any egyptologist's structure, because a) it would be too partisan and b) every egyptologist has his own structure. And before starting bickering about whom to follow, we should try to find our own article structure, shouldn't we? Maybe we can find a pleasing agreement.
 * My main "problem" is my passion for the predynastic and early dynasties. As a consequence, my literature (in book form and in web form) is focused on this epoques. Thus, I can write detailed chapters of the early origins and worships of a deity or king, but hardly about the later epoques (see above).

Reference errors on 20 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=686620263 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F686620263%7CWikipedia%5D%5D Ask for help])

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation done!
Hello Parrot, I have just sent you an email with the translation that you asked some time ago. I hope this will help you. Let me know if you don't see / receive the email.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again. This passage should be the last one I need translated for the Isis rewrite. A. Parrot (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Perrot I want to create an english page for wikipedia.
Dear Perrot I want to create an english page for wikipedia. Please send me some tools for best creation. Thanks :) GeorgeSnt007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.155.248 (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Some Help
I put in requests for temporary semi-protection to stymie that inane kid-friendly vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Hello. Per WP:NPOV articles should mainly reflect the mainstream opinion (quote: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; my emphasis) with differing opinions being given a prominence that properly reflects how much support they have, and the mainstream opinion is that ancient Egyptians were white/Mediterranean. All ancient images also reflect that, so having no ancient images supporting the non-mainstream opinions is not a valid reason for not including images that do reflect/support the mainstream opinion... Thomas.W talk 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that "the mainstream opinion is that ancient Egyptians were white/Mediterranean". Ancient Egyptian race controversy says that the Egyptians were and are genetically similar to other populations in north and northeast Africa, which would include Libya, Ethiopia and Sudan. Those populations seem to be partly descended from a wave of Middle Eastern migration during the Neolithic as well as from very long-standing African ancestors. Ancient Egyptians also seem to be mostly the same, genetically speaking, as their modern descendants—I read somewhere that gene flow during the Islamic conquest of Egypt was a small but significant portion of modern Egyptians' genetic makeup (discrediting Afrocentrist assertions that ancient Egyptians were much "blacker" than their modern descendants). The Egyptian population looks "whiter" or "blacker" in different parts of the country. People in Cairo and the Nile Delta cities may look "white/Mediterranean", but people in Luxor look like this: workmen from the village of Qurna. Overall, I regard Egypt as proof that racial dividing lines are artificial and stupid, because some Egyptians would seem unambiguously black to American eyes, while others would be recognized as Middle Eastern and others would be seen as white. And many of the Americans who saw them would disagree on what category they fit into. (I'm speaking in American terms because I'm less sure of how race is perceived in Europe.) The Egyptologist Frank Yurco said pretty much the same thing in this article.


 * Getting around to the image problem: images from dynastic Egypt typically show men as red-brown and women as yellow. Middle Eastern men were depicted as yellow and Nubian men as genuinely black. The coloring is an artistic convention, not a close reflection of reality, and exaggerated the differences between sexes and populations. Occasionally artists would break convention a bit. The tomb of Nebamun gives the red-brown color to both men and women. The tomb of Nefertari gives Nefertari herself a pinkish skin tone while reserving the traditional, less realistic yellow for goddesses. If we assume that both of these breaches of convention were moves toward greater realism, then they would show that women in ancient Egypt could be "white" or red-brown, just as they can today. The Faiyum mummy portraits come from a more realistic art style than that of dynastic Egypt, but they also come from a northerly part of the country, one with a very large population of Greek settlers, so they should not be taken as the best reflection of what all ancient Egyptians looked like.


 * Finally, this article has been extremely contentious in the past—look at its talk page archives. It's not as bad now, but arguments flare up periodically. One of the points of contention has been the images, because editors have used them to push a point of view about what the Egyptians looked like. Moreover, choosing a particular image to represent how the Egyptians depicted themselves may be off-topic, or even constitute original research, in an article about the modern controversy over race. I think at one time the images were limited to specific things that were mentioned in the article text as being part of the modern controversy, such as the face of the Sphinx and the National Geographic reconstruction of Tutankhamun's face, which was not off-topic and ran less risk of original research. But even that proved too objectionable to some editors.


 * Sorry for being so long-winded, but as you can see, this is a complex topic that produces a lot of disagreement. I just think it's safer not to include images at all. A. Parrot (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to get lost in detail. The "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" is about whether the ancient Egyptians where white/Caucasian or black African, not about what particular branch of the "Caucasian family" they belonged to. And, as you write above, the position of modern scholarship, i.e. the mainstream opinion, is that the ancient Egyptians were the same people as today, that is not black African. So how can ~2,000 years old funerary portraits that show that people in Faiyoum, Middle Egypt, back then looked just like the people who live in Egypt today be controversial/non-neutral? Thomas.W talk 07:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First, the article is supposed to focus on the controversy—the modern arguments over whether Egyptians were black or white—rather than drawing conclusions. That may seem an arbitrary and finicky distinction, but it's the one that was settled on years ago, after years of disputes at the old title, race of the Ancient Egyptians. Describing—or illustrating—the actual appearance of the Egyptians is actually rather tangential there, which is why for a while the only images in the article were directly related to specific points of the controversy. Population history of Egypt is actually the article about Egyptians' ancestry and so forth.


 * Second, the Faiyum mummy portraits look more "white" than a lot of art from dynastic Egypt, so it's probable that someone is going to complain that they're slanting the article in favor of "whiteness", especially because the people in the portraits may have Greek ancestry. And then we could have another round of arguments and edit wars on our hands. If you think I'm being paranoid, please look at some of the talk page archives. This section and this section are examples of past image disputes. For that matter, I'm pinging, who's dealt with disputes on this article for years and must know its wikihistory far better than I do, to see what he thinks.


 * Having said all that, I won't oppose your adding the portraits back if you're really determined to do it. I'm just saying it's a bad idea. A. Parrot (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care if the images are there or not, I added them because they're remarkably well preserved and in most cases amazingly realistic considering their age (most European portraits a thousand years younger aren't even close...). Thomas.W talk 20:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As A. Parrot says, this is an article on the history of the controversy, or rather it's meant to be. Someone always comes along and thinks it's a place to argue the controversy. I think the decision not to include images is a good one - as the cliche goes, "pictures speak louder than words". Of course, we could have a section, if we could source it, on the use of images as part of the controversy I guess. Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Understandable. I'm sorry if I seemed to be overreacting. This particular article just has a very long and ugly history. A. Parrot (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Elephant (pharaoh)
A new king!^^ Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Pharaohs
BTW: I'm editing this list. Sorry to say that, but I'm horrified how much nonsense is written there... Would you mind to keep an eye on it? Just in case some revert-trolls appear. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my watchlist. I also deleted the section on the gods who ruled as mythical kings—I hope you don't object. Several king-lists do include gods as kings at the beginning of time, but the lists aren't consistent with each other about which gods ruled and in what order. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that ancient king-lists included those mythic rulers, but I don't think our list should make them look equivalent in any way to the real kings later in the article. A. Parrot (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * very good. Although, I think a short and well referenced section explaining the mythical eras should be placed, just for the sake of completeness. But some of the current arrangements of the list are also questionable. Time for a cleansweep. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bikheris
Hi. I have edited the article and gave it a proper pharaoh box. ;o) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ararat arev
This sock appears to be back making edits to Ancient Egyptian religion. Since you are more familiar with this, would you mind looking at this to see if my suspicion might be correct? I may be online for a short time now and for a brief period or two tomorrow; then I will be offline for 7 or 8 days. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I see that you have already identified this user as a sock. Sorry for jumping the gun and posting an extra notice. You are ahead of me. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

See this:
The sock changed the text, but is your edit so I guess it could be copied over. Doug Weller (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Claims that the Pryamid Texts are the oldest religious text
Hello. You deleted a revision that I made regarding the oldest known version of the Kesh Temple Hymn being older than the oldest known version of the Pyramid Texts despite the fact that the Pyramid Texts are often cited as the oldest extant religious texts. Your note was "This text is too much of a problem, so I'm just deleting it."

I'd like to get more clarification on which part of it was a problem. From the history of the page, it looks like there were some objections to the idea that the KTH is older.

It's my understanding that the dating of the KTH might be off by a few decades, but is pretty firmly placed pre-2500 BCE based both on lexical clues in the tablets themselves and on radiocarbon dating of several samples of organanic material found near the KTH in the Abu Salabihk complex.

Are there serious, scholarly objections to the dating of the KTH from Abu Salabikh that I'm not aware of (that would adjust the dating by centuries)?

Thank you.

Acleverpseudonym (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can point out that the pyramid texts themselves are not so well dated: the oldest extent copy of them that is available today dates back to the reign of Unas hence mid 24th century BC. However it is widely believed that the texts themselves are much older than this. A thorough analysis of the texts has revealed that at least some parts were most likely the incantations/prayers recited in the mortuary temple of the king. Such temples are obviously found in e.g. Djoser's pyramid, e.g. at least 2670 BC and preceding structures such as the Ka house go back to 1st dynasty (starting c. 3100 BC). I am essentially trying to point out that while the oldest copy of the texts may be younger than the KHT, it seems to be universally believed by Egyptologist that the texts arch back to the earliest period of Egypt history.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that the Pyramid Texts are actually older than the oldest extant copy. The same is believed of the KTH. The "copy" found in Abu Salabikh was actually 3 copies that are practically identical to each other and also practically identical to copies from 800 years later seeming to imply that this was both a standard, well copied text and that it was already fully mature as such in the mid 26th century BCE.


 * Unfortunately, all of this is speculation until further evidence is found, for both texts. This is why I specified "extant text." The KTH is the clearest example of an older religious text because it both clearly qualifies as a religious text and is dated by multiple means to 2600-2520 BCE


 * There are also offering lists to the goddess Inanna found in Uruk from sometime between 3300-3100 BCE that predate the 1st Dynasty but I've only found reference to them in passing (though in a scholarly source) and offering lists are sort of stretching the definition of "religious text." Acleverpseudonym (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I agree with you then, the oldest extent religous text could be the KTH, unfortunately I know of no reliable source stating this fac. If you have one, referencing it would go a long way to convince other editors to let you add this fact to the relevant article(s). Also there might be the problem of defining what constitutes a religious text as you point out and what does it mean to be "extent".&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The line removed didn't claim that the KTH were the oldest religious texts. They claimed that they predated the oldest known copy of the Pyramid Texts. The line read "They are often claimed to be the oldest known religious texts, though the oldest known version is predated by the Kesh Temple Hymn by about two centuries." I provided sourcing for both orthographic dating and carbon dating of the Abu Salabikh KTH and in the Pyramid Texts talk page linked to recent radiocarbon dating done by the Oxford Project on several Old Kingdom samples that generally confirmed the dating for the Pyramid of Unas Pyramid Texts. Even a low Sumerian chronology places the Abu Salabikh KTH before the PT date listed in the PT wiki page.


 * With regard to whether the Kesh Temple Hymn is a religious text, it claims divine provenance (the text itself claims to have originally been scribed by the goddess Nisaba, recording the words of the god Enlil) and describes (among other things) temple dedication rites. I would understand a rejection of the Uruk temple offerings lists based upon the argument that they're secular documents that happen to involve a temple, but the religious nature of the KTH seems to be clear.


 * To clarify the confusion over the word, "extant", I was using "extant" as in "existent," so I was referring to the oldest copy known to be in existence.


 * The majority of this conversation is happening in the Pyramid Texts Talk page. It turns out that A Parrot removed the line without realizing a change has been made to it and (s)he and I have been discussing a suitable replacement. The current idea is to put something like the following (written by A Parrot):


 * "The Pyramid Texts are the oldest collection of religious texts from ancient Egypt, predated only by a few individual temple texts, and they contain extensive information about beliefs and practices in the Old Kingdom, see Harold M. Hays, The Organization of the Pyramid Texts, Brill (2012), pp. 1, 4. They have been claimed as the oldest religious texts in the world (see Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Thames and Hudson (2003), p. 6), although there are several Sumerian texts that may be older.[insert a note with detailed examples]"


 * Thank you for taking the time to discuss this, by the way! Acleverpseudonym (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well! I am quite convinced by what you said, I am looking forward to see these updates in the relevant articles.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at Akhenatens arms crossed and shabti which is Osiris pose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.29 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheshi at FAC
Hello Parrot, I would like to know if could give your opinion concerning Sheshi, which is currently a Featured Article Candidate here. I would hate to see the article fail because of lack of review.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacuna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hesy-Ra
Hi there. I have edited and expanded this article. What do you think? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an improvement. I might make some minor copyedits later, but I won't have time this month—I'm going to Egypt the day after tomorrow and won't be back until January. A. Parrot (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Woow, I'm green and yellow with envy!^^ Are you going to celebrate christmas vacation? --Nephiliskos (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Egypt is replacing Christmas for me this year. I have no religious attachment to Christmas, and here in the US it's a five-week barrage of nonstop marketing and holiday music, which has seriously worn down my enthusiasm for its non-religious aspects.


 * I suppose I should have asked this earlier, but I have a list of photos I want to take in Egypt, so I can upload them to Commons and use them in articles. Is there anything not on Commons that you or would like me to photograph at Giza, Philae, Kom Ombo, Edfu, Karnak, Luxor, Abydos, Dendera, or Deir el-Bahri? Photos aren't allowed at the Cairo Museum or the Valley of the Kings, and I probably won't be able to go far off the main tourist track at the sites I listed, but I want to contribute as much as I can. A. Parrot (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Uuuuh... so it's wishmas-time, huh?^^ How about pics of early dynastic tombs? We would need those of: Iry-Hor, Ka, Narmer, Aha, Djer, Djet, Anedjib, Semerkhet, Qa'a, Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. Also some pics of the Shunet el-Zebib and the Middle Fort would be awesome. At Giza you may try to get some pics of the Khafra temple and the Menkaura temple. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'll be able to photograph any of those, but I will try. A. Parrot (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there Parrot, apologies for seeing this so late, I am busy as hell these days. There are a few pyramids which have no photographies but all are in Abusir and vicinity, thus not where you are going. In any case, I would encourage you to upload whatever photos of monuments you have, the more photos on commons, the better! Have a nice trip to Egypt!&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * and : Well, I'm back. Unfortunately, the Early Dynastic tombs at Abydos are off-limits to tourists, so I couldn't photograph them. I missed a chance to photograph Khafre's pyramid temple; I did get a few photos of his valley temple. I wasn't all that good at getting the photos I wanted for myself, either, but there should be a few dozen worth uploading to Commons. Evaluating all the photos I took and choosing the best to upload will take me a long time.


 * The really good news: the Egyptian Museum in Cairo allowed photography when I was there! I was unclear whether it was a temporary or a permanent change in their photo policy. In any case, I took advantage of it. I paid particular attention to sculptures, because most of the other stuff is behind glass and harder to get a decent photo of. I paid particular attention to Khafre Enthroned, because it's brilliant and I don't find the photos of it on Commons very satisfactory. I should have some other shots of Old Kingdom stuff that are good enough to upload, too. It will just take a while. A. Parrot (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Aahh, too bad! I'm still curious about the old kingdom pictures. ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Speculation on why the Egyptians developed a consonantal alphabet
Greetings: There is some discussion at RD/Language as to why speakers of Semitic languages created and continue (for some of them) to use consonantal alphabets. The speculations offered varied between "Semites like to write in consonants because they don't care very much about the vowels seeing that their languages are based on three consonant roots" and "all inventions are in the beginning rough and undercooked" [sic: the author of that explanation is a Russian speaker]. Either seemed so unlikely to me that I thought I could do worse than offer my own, which is comprised of two parts (1) the idea of consonantal writing was adopted by the Semites from the Egyptians and (2) in Egyptian it resulted entirely naturally from the fact that the phonetic value of the signs was derived at first according to the rebus principle from logograms (and then the uniliteral signs extracted according to the acrophonic principle) and that it only made sense to associate to the sign the phonetics that were permanently associated with the word (the consonants) rather than what could vary (the vowels). Then I thought I might run my speculation past someone who actually knew what they were talking about. Feel free to correct any mistake at Reference desk/Language (bottom of the thread). I've just noticed the Russian fellow answered my remarks but I don't get the feeling he understood what I was saying. Contact Basemetal   here  01:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Egyptian linguistics, but I don't notice any errors in what you said. Obviously any ideas about why hieroglyphs were devised the way they were is going to be largely speculation, but your speculation makes a certain amount of sense. While I read it, it occurred to me that another, similar factor could have also been at work. When you're trying to create a full writing system out of pictograms using the rebus principle, it's easier to come of with a pictogram for every word if you only try to match up the consonants, ignoring the vowels.


 * I agree that Yęzýkin doesn't seem to have understood what you said. It might help to restate it in the simpler terms you used here. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Akhenaten
Hi, please take a look at talk:Akhenaten, I discussed about the Osirian cult that Akhenaten didn't completely reject, and he kept or copied the Osiris rituals during his reign. I would like to have your thoughts on this, thank you. 166.170.45.225 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi A. Parrot, I replied to you in the talk Akhenaten page, can I get your responses on that ? Thanks. 166.171.123.47 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help
Thank you for helping to make the article Neonatal infection get even better with your recent edit. I just found out that it is in the que to appear on the Main page in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mysteries of Isis
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veil of Isis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian deities
Hi, have been reading this over the last few days out of interest, and wanted to say it was thoroughly absorbing. Ceoil (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I consider it my best work on Wikipedia so far. A. Parrot (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wiki is fortunate to have somebody of your knowledge and ability. I was also drawn to your latest "veil" article, though it is a pre/romantic construct (and thus closer to my usual interest). Anyway, thanks and more please. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, there will be more, until either I die or Wikipedia does. I just wish I weren't so slow in producing it. Rewrites for Isis and Hathor are next on my Wikipedia to-do list, as I keep telling everybody, but figuring out which one will be complete first feels like betting on a race between two snails. Following the twisted threads of Isis's influence through history has been fun, though. I created the veil article and mysteries of Isis so I could do justice to that story without trying to stuff too much of it in the parent article. A. Parrot (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Know the feeling. Have been working towards Jan van Eyck via sub articles in fits and starts, for about six years. I have been aware of you work here for years, and consider you more thoughtful and inclined towards bursts than slow. Your writing style is excellent and engaging, and you have a command of the sources. Keep on going as is, is my advice. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar of Isis

 * Thank you very much. It is a fascinating topic. I really want to do it justice because it sprawls into so many subject areas. Whereas ancient Egyptian deities is a big but self-contained subject because it's mostly limited to one culture, Isis ran through multiple cultures, from Nubia to the Greco-Roman religious world (what a wildly mixed stew that was!) to Western esotericism. She touches on everything from the ancient Egyptian conception of femininity to the Christianization of the Empire.


 * I should also thank you for your work on the Fifth Dynasty. It deserves to be better known because it was an era of major change. It struck me long ago how many influential religious developments there were in the Fifth Dynasty—in addition to the Pyramid Texts, it produced the first written mentions of Osiris and Isis, the first known pylons (or nearly), and the first known obelisks. Religious developments are naturally what I think of first, but there was a lot going on in other respects—there seems to be a lot more evidence for how the country's administration and economy worked in the Fifth Dynasty than the ones before it. I assume Djedkare Isesi will be your next FA nomination? A. Parrot (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is remarkable how Isis was found in so many different eras and places, which makes writing excellent articles about her and her cult so much more difficult and reading them, so interesting. I am impressed at how you have mastered a variety of sources spanning so many different cultural and religious contexts. About the 5th Dynasty, I too am surprised at the number of "firsts" that these kings have. Just for Djedkare I found that the earliest depiction of a siege dates to his reign, as well as the earliest surviving letters on papyri, the earliest known record of an oracular divination and of course the first vast reform of the Egyptian administration and the ranking system of officials (unfortunately, Djedkare's decisions seem to be partly responsible for the feudal system of the 1st intermediate period). I am still a long way from submitting Djedkare to FA as I still need to add a "Legacy" section discussing his funerary cult and the long term impact of his reforms as well as numerous bits and bobs in the article. Once I have gotten all pharaohs of the 5th Dynasty to FA, I will write the article on the 5th Dynasty itself to put all these firsts into perspective and discuss the global evolution of the Egyptian society during these times.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a quick note to say thank you for conducting the GA review of Order of Nine Angles. It is appreciated! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian gods template
Your speedy tag made various articles like Anubis show up in the speedy deletion category, so I removed it. You are probably right that it should be deleted, though, but I decided to go for TfD instead of speedy so more people can participate. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 06:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Djedkare FAC
Hello Parrot, this is to let you know that Djedkare Isesi is now at FAC, see here. I would be most grateful if you could comment on it.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mysteries of Isis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mysteries of Isis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mysteries of Isis
The article Mysteries of Isis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mysteries of Isis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
We've met and I thought I would just say hello here. Feel free to move or delete this message. Tjohnso (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Egyptologists
Thanks for the comment at the AfD. Looking again at Dorothy Eady (that caught my eye as well!) I agree. How would you describe her? I notice she is in List of Egyptologists but Natacha Rambova is not. Also (I noted this on the article talk page), would you agree with my removal of Aleida Assmann? She is still listed at List of Egyptologists (I forgot to remove her from there). Her husband is an Egyptologist, but I don't think she worked on that much beyond university and her career has been focused elsewhere. This shows some of the perils of splitting out women separately from a main list. Both have to be maintained in parallel (unless you maintain a master list manually, use that to update Wikidata, and use Wikidata to extract the data for various sublists? That actually sort of makes sense!). Are you familiar with N. de Garis Davies (Nina and Norman)? Finally, there is List of French Egyptologists - I noticed there are rather a lot of French Egyptologists, presumably from the Napoleonic era and the studies done then and a continuing tradition? Does that make such a list notable, or should the focus be on an article on the French school(s) of Egyptology? Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to do about those individual inclusions. Arguing about who is and isn't an Egyptologist isn't my strong suit; see my old discussions at Talk:R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. I regard him as less of an Egyptologist than any of the people you just mentioned, but he still ended up being described as one in the article.


 * French Egyptology is certainly a long-standing tradition. Egyptology emerged from the French and British interest in Egypt sparked by Napoleon and became a scholarly discipline thanks to Thomas Young, Jean-François Champollion, and Ippolito Rosellini. Once they were all prematurely dead, Egyptology was virtually refounded by Karl Richard Lepsius. As a result, Egyptological studies have always been dominated by the Germans, the French, and the English-speaking world, with some Italians and a large smattering of other nationalities.


 * The list of French Egyptologists was created by Blofeld, not anybody from the ancient Egypt project, and nobody has been maintaining it. I wasn't even aware it existed. In contrast, the main list of Egyptologists covers the French contingent pretty thoroughly. Therefore, I doubt there's any need to have the separate list, though you should probably ask User:Khruner, who seems to have done the most work in maintaining the main list, and User:Iry-Hor, the project's resident French Wikipedian. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I should have realised there would be a discussion somewhere of the sort found at Talk:R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz! I'll remove Assmann from the main list and see if the editors there agree. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Like A. Parrot, I have doubts about the usefulness of the very plain List of French Egyptologists. An integration with List of Egyptologists could be better (omitting the redlinks). But since I'm not French, I'd prefer that Iry-Hor had the last word in this regard. If he wasn't busy in RL, he may found interest in writing an article about French Egyptology.
 * About being Egyptologists, that's a spiny matter. I used to (re)write articles about ancient Egypt-related modern-times persons. I had no problem in not calling "Egyptologists" people like Giuseppe Ferlini and Antonio Lebolo, but technically the same can be said of Bernardino Drovetti which, unlike the former two, is present in List of Egyptologists. Khruner (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, sorry for my late reply, I have hardly any free time. I am all for merging the list of French Egyptologists with that of Egyptologists. First, I think it is a matter of coherence: if we have such a French list, then we could argue that we should have a list for every nationality. Second, I don't see the point of having a separate list based on nationality, indeed the subject studied by these people (Ancient Egypt) is the same for everyone and is the reason why they are on Wikipedia in the first place. Third, nationality-based lists dilute the content of the encyclopedia and of the editing efforts, leading to many lower quality articles rather than a good, up to date, long one. On a case by case basis, there will always be people for whom it is difficult to decide if they were Egyptologists or not. I think we shouls try to have a precise criterion on top of notability, such as the person must have published books/articles on Ancient Egypt.&#32;Iry-Hor (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)