User talk:Amizzoni~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reply on Otten
Actually, his name is Heinrich Otten and he is a German scholar who has worked much with Hittite sites. Yes, I´ve been writing and editing a few articles about ANE sites. Strange enough, my article about Ortaköy/Shapinuwa seems to have vanished, so this would be my next project. --JFK 16:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion
Hi Amizzoni,

I noticed from the Inclusionist category page that you're an inclusionist, too, and a native Spanish speaker. So, I was wondering if you would be able to do me a huge favor and possibly place a vote here: Articles for deletion/Embarazada. I added a ton to it, citing my sources. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop uploading the unfree Cyrus Cylinder image
Please stop uploading the image from the British Museum. It was already speedily deleted once, yet you uploaded it under another name again, and edited the Cyrus the Great article with it. Images from the British Museum are not free, and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia. ♠ SG →Talk 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! You live, you learn. I too wish we had a better image of the Cyrus Cylinder. ♠ SG →Talk 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Started Karl Hoffmann (German historian)
Hi, Amizzoni. Just letting you know that I started the article Karl Hoffmann (German historian) thanks to you. Thought you'd like to know, since you were the one who first listed him on Wikipedia. Still a stub, though; doesn't even detail the later years of his life or most of his work. ♠ SG →Talk 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing archaeology topics
I wonder if you could have a look at this list of missing archaeology topics - Skysmith 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cylinder image
Right, my apologies. I'm not familiar with the OTRS system, but I've gotten myself up to speed. In any case, see if you can get a larger image of the cylinder from Jona Lendering. That version has been made far too small for the article. ♠ SG →Talk 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I love the twist; I guess you got me. As for the image size, the original replacement you used was a different, smaller image. Glad you got a larger one this time, looks great. ♠ SG →Talk 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Clinder Edits
Regarding your recent edits, please see: Talk:Cyrus cylinder ("Edits by Amizzoni" section). ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Thapsacus
Can you explain your objection to separating Biblical and secular references in this article?

Classical/Modern is an acceptable approach to me, but "Alleged Babylonian" is not parallel to that classification system. Unless you want "Alleged Classical" "Confirmed Classical", etc.... but let's not go there.

Let's pick an system of reference organization and stick with it. I don't particularly like Classical/Modern, because the only modern reference is the 1911 Brittania (and it's based on ancient sources!)

Please let me know why you think Biblical/secular is orthogonal to the article so we can discuss it.

dpotter 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I now understand your concerns about biblical/secular - but I'm still not comfortable with your proposal of classical/modern/babylonian - they're not parallel thoughts (time period/time period/culture of origin).


 * Perhaps we can just scrap the subdivisions in this section? Honestly, I don't think it's such a big loss. Or, if you feel strongly that you want them organized into groups, let's continue to discuss a system that presents a clear and consistent method of organization. -- dpotter 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Amytis
Ver cambios. Saludos --Berimbau1 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pasargades winged man.jpg
Ah, fantastic. That photo is much clearer than the ones we had before. Thanks for the info! ♠ SG →Talk 23:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus building projects
Hey, Amizzoni. How's everything going?

Well, remember a while back, how you suggested we add in a section about Cyrus' building projects? I haven't had a lot of time to do any thorough research, but in the little time I did search, I wasn't able to find any reliable sources about things Cyrus commissioned for building, apart from the Second Temple. I was hoping you could perhaps take a look and find some articles or books about it, and maybe we could start putting them into the article. ♠ SG →Talk 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. I'll be sure to look those up. ♠ SG →Talk 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The unreliable and disputed problems
Salam or Dorood my Persian bro...

Hi, I got to say, thanks for your edits, you have opened my mind. But, there is a problem, me, who has studied the works of Herodotus, the father of historical lies, and Ctesias the lost and very intricate historian that almost all his works were lost, and Xenophon, Nicolas of Damascus, Justin, including Biblical and Babylonian sources... All I can say is that all these historians and history, which the arguement over history itself lets leave for another time, is disputed, all of them, so just because the full work of Ctesias the guy who knew personally as the physician of Artaxerxes, and knew Persian historians, I think people have been biased to Ctesias because almost all his works were lost, and he fills in the holes that Herodotus leaves open, including that he wrote his thing only 200 years after Herodotus' Histories, so to call him unreliable, would be a big mistake. So I just want to say that Cyrus' campgain box that I created is based of a combination of Hero,Ctes, and Nicols works. Which always remember the only way to discover truth in history is to analize all works and average them, by using all sources to find similar things which could be true. The article of Cyrus only has Herodotus' version of events, and that shows that over the ages peoples bias's are expanding, he basically fails us to cover the later events of Cyrus the Greats life. So it is the only way is to include all estimates even if they are not true. Like in certain battles if more than one historian talks about the numbers, you don't just put one of their guesses, you put all the guesses of all the historians who talked about it, to be fair and balanced of course. So Atradates was a nickname of Cambyses I, it's not another person, and therefore I think it now should be included in Cambyses I article, don't worry I won't put it back in Cyrus's article. Second, Baselius or something, I may have spelled it wrong, like you said only applies to Greek rulers right, but in tradition Croessus was a Greek, and even if the tradition is wrong, Asia Minor which is half of The Lydian Empire was composed of Asian Greeks! Lydians are Greeks, and so are Ionians, throughout really ancient history they migrated back and forth from mainland Greece to Asian Greece. But when Persia fought, starting from the Ionian Revolt, mainland Greece, the official Greco-started-Persian Wars began, so to make Cyrus's title apply to him, calling him a Baselius is not going to hurt. And the Medes had a Empire with a Emperor, some books today call Astyages Emperor of the Medes, ask me to look for it, and I'll prove it to you. But as we all know Bablyonians had only Kings, which they called themselves, so thanks for reading, and best of wishes to you. Also Herodotus told allot of stories, but Ctesias said facts, now Herodotus is more proned to lie than Ctesias, but Ctesias could have lied to, most of the time they both don't know if even the things they say themselves is true or not, so they could lie without even knowing it. And thanks you. Comment back, and suggest things to me if I'm wrong, remember that I only talk comman sense here, I'm in a unknown school of thought, and I am becoming 19 years of age, and study ancient Persia heavily, and have allot of good books, okay. Goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Cyrus
Ariobarza talk also says that this is a excerpt from the article Basileus which is a copy pasted here, and says...

Use of Basileus in Classical Times

In classical times, almost all states had abolished the hereditary royal office in favor of democratic or oligarchic rule: Some exceptions exist: namely the two hereditary Kings of Sparta (who served as joint commanders of the army, and were also called arkhagetai), the Kings of Macedon and of the Molossians in Epirus, various kings of "barbaric" (i.e. non-Greek) tribes in Thrace and Illyria, as well as the Achaemenid kings of Persia. The Persian king was also referred to as Megas Basileus (Great King) or Basileus Basileōn, a translation of the Persian title Šāhanšāh ("King of Kings"), or simply "the king".

None Greeks calling none Greek kings the title of Basileus? What the hell, I thought...Oh, and don't forget that Byzantium rulers of turkey in nearby Lydia used them to, even for foreign conquerors, and that Thrace was sometimes changed in locations between Greece and Turkey, and that the eastern half of ancient Thrace belongs to Turkey today, so don't say it only applied to Persian Satraps in Thrace, which anyways Thracians and Persians are none Greeks themselves, it was applied wherever the majority of the population was Greek, I guess, because I think this seems to be the case here, or the lands between Greece and Turkey. Which included ancient Lydia, which Cyrus conquered. Also we have a considerable amount of information that Ctesias has left us, basically based on the fragments of Ctesias, Herodotus talks about the Persians five times more than Ctesias talks about the Persians, and both Ctesias and Herodotus mention eachother, which shows both the (Persica), and (Histories), were written around the same time, which is very similar to Herodotus accounts too. So I think there is some truth to it, in the middle of course. Which is still worth mentioning, you can find it, and read it, and you'll be suprised, in books, and on the internet. Another reason is that Ctesias, as verified by other historians was the personal physician of Artaxerxes, and had access to the Persian archives. So is it not common sense, to believe in the words of a royal Persian physician, or to believe in the words of a commoner in some ancient town, meaning Herodotus!. To give an EXAMPLE, imagine a Assyrian tablet saying king Whatever killed Tedo, but the tablet dosen't say when he buried Tedo. Then a Babylonian tablet both dated in the same time, says that in July 2, 1,234 BC, king Whatever buried Tedo, now we have the date, because the Babylonians have told us this, and there is no reason to doubt them, because, like I said both tablets were dated around the same time, and lets say they were written by prominent historians, (and again this is an example), SO the point is, (by using more than one source to find something out, we come closer to the truth), both Ctesias fills in the gaps that Herodotus leaves open, and Herodotus does the same thing to Ctesias. So as I read in most books, historians do this today. Okay then, thanks for reading, goodbye.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_the_Great"--Ariobarza (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

=Assyria (Persian province)= Amizzoni, seeing cyou have worked in Achaemenid related articls, I was wondering if you could give your opinion here, after reading the article and the case. Thanks for your time. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. What do you think of the article as a whole? Chaldean (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saing only the archeological section is good? Hehe Just kidding, I think its close to pass a good article test, but before we nominate it, we need to move the page in its right title. Chaldean (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

=Jesus Christ Amizzoni, read my last comment on your page= I really respect your work, but I got to say I'm just dissapointed at your recent edits, YES imperial status of Media is disputed, but compare it to Assyria and Egypt, it was a huge KINGDOM? Or an {E M P I R E}, so the Cyrus article is just an educated guess on it, because to tell you the truth were never going to know. And Cyrus first conquered Lydia, so if the Persian kings after him were called Basileus (as my last comment implies), then he was most likely the first of the Persian kings to be called that, thank you!--67.180.225.250 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Shahenshah of Persia
Ok.

Emperor of Media
The imperial status of Media is disputed among scholars, so it would be better to "SAY" "King of Media" instead. REPLY; That is why I PUT a semi-colon on the word Emperor, so if its wrong people know its just a fancy title.] It is important to take into account that the word King doesn't imply that the individual ruled over a small territory, it is used to indicate that he was a sole ruler; by this way, all emperors were kings, so the people who consider Media as an Empire, accept that its emperor was King of Media. REPLY; And also according to some findings, which I WILL site soon, sometimes the rulers of Media called themselves the EMPEROR, and Cyrus was not a ruler of a Kingdom, but an Empire.] Compare the usage of Emperor of Media (4) with the usage of King of Media (2,100). REPLY; In the study of history, it changes over time, as more evidence is discovered and arranged, so basically if the majority of people choose to believe something wrong, does not mean its true.]

Basileus of Lydia
Cyrus conquered Lydia, but, AFAIK, there is no evidence that he used any title relating to Lydia. REPLY; PLEASE READ THE LAST HUGE PARAGRAPH I WROTE, AND LOOK AT THE BASILEUS ARTICLE YOURSELF!] It is a dubious and unreferenced statement, so I think we should simply remove it. REPLY; I referenced it on your talk page, and Cyrus' talk page.]

King of Neo-Babylonia
Such title doesn't exist, his title was "King of Babylonia". We shouldn't make up titles. REPLY; Yes, but he conquered the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire, not the ORIGINAL Babylonian Empire, please type in Neo-Babylonian Empire on Wikipedia.] Cyrus was also King of Anshan. It is in fact his most attested title. REPLY; Yes, but most scholars today consider him just talking about his capitals name, which Tiespes conquered Anshan or Susa from the Elamites, when they were destroyed by Assyria. So if Cyrus says he is the King of Pasargadae, he is the king of his own capital, his capital was later moved to Pasargadae.]

Finally, the Finale!
I'm doing this, as from the begining, to correct the previous versions of the titles of Cyrus, and to match it with Alexander the Greats titles (which I suggest you click on him to see what I mean), in history, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU CLAIM OF EXISTS, UNLESS ITS ARCHAEOLOGICAL. So please do not TALK about EVIDENCE, the only EVIDENCE is a surviving fragment of the historians writings. Also read the USE IN CLASSICAL TIMES part of the Basileus article, even if you have already read it carefully, I beg you the last sentences answers your questions. EVIDENCE OF TITLES for Cyrus is the king of the four corners, as he and the Mesopotaimians cite in his famous stella to himself. Or the former powers that he conquered, IN FACT, by conquering the LYDIAN, NEO-BABYLONIAN OR YOU CAN CALL IT CHALDEAN, AND MEDIAN E M P I R E S, he managed to also conquer the hundreds of smaller types of peoples in them too. So what BOTHERS me is that other than a coin of Alexander saying he is Zeus-Ammon, there is no evidence, just like in Cyrus's case that he had any other titles, we give him titles based on what historians say, SO believe it or not, JUST LIKE CYRUS, he conquered the three to four major powers of his time, (and anyways they should give him a Indian title to, because he also conquered India), Alexander gets the Greek, Hellenstic, Egyptian, and Shahenshah TITLES. But Cyrus only gets half of what he deserves. But, know this, its not that I want to overshadow Alexander or any other great conquerers article, its that I want things to be fair, so if your human, I think you can understand. And Herodotus, Ctesias, and Nicolas of Damascus, all say after the battle of Pasargadae, which Cyrus conquers the Medians, he is praised by both sides, and even referenced by the titles of now being the KING OF PERSIA AND MEDIA, ACCLAMATIONS AND SHOUTING TO HIS FACE! Again ANSHAN is just a capital, that later moved to PASARGADAE! About 75% of historians agree that the Persian realm was all of south-western IRAN, because all the Persian tribes were united as one under Achaemens or Teispes, so Cyrus was not the ruler of just one small city, most suppose that Cyrus may have acknowledged himself (so the Babylonians would know) that his original capital was at ANSHAN, that is why he refers to himself as KING OF ANSHAN AND OF PERSIA, (Persia being the new empire he created). I PRAY to Ahura Mazda, that you can understand my simple to understand sentences that even a five year old can understand. Finally check this mind blowing article out, Neo-Babylonian Empire, yes such a name, and possible title for Cyrus can exist. For Medians calling themselves emperor, I'm still searching. But in the mean time, I'll put "Emperor", but as you can SEE, with SEMI-COLINS AROUND EMPEROR, TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A FANCY TITLE FOR MEDIAN EMPIRE, so people UNDERSTAND it still means king, so DON'T remove it, because I kinda agree with you on the Media subject. FINALLY, Amizzoni, I agree with you on everything, its just there are some things most people know and don't know, but don't REALIZE! I cheerish and I'm pissed off about the debates that we sometimes have, but I HOPE THIS CAN BE THE LAST ONE! Other than that I am still kinda okay with your recent edits. thank you, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

MISUNDERSTANDING, PLEASE READ
I am sorry. I know when I write, it sounds like I'm a ten year old, its just I'm in a hurry most of the time for personal reasons, hope you can understand. Also whenever I revert your edits, it is because of AFAIK, I might know more or less for certain things at times. And I'm expecting you to know why I do it, because I leave you those HUGE responses. But, I did not revert your edits last time, someone else added Media and Babylon to it. So again just for YOU to know, Anshan was an Elamite city conquered by Teispes in 645? BC, when the Elamites were weakened by the Assyrians. Then from that time it was considered to be the capital of the Persis province, so Cyrus may have been wanting the Babylonians to know that his birthplace and coronation was in Anshan, that is why he says he is KING OF ANSHAN, AND PERSIA, which is more like KING OF PERSIA, if he was originally from Anshan, then he should have said he is an Elamite, WHICH HE DOES NOT SAY, again the capital was moved to another city, which is Pasargadae, the city where his tribe resided, and the clan of the Achaemedae were, it was also were he beat his so called grandfather Astyages in battle, so to me, and most historians, it is considered as only ONE TITLE, not Anshan and Persia, only PERSIA. So don't be mad at the last edit that did not really change anything, which anyways was not me. Finally I wish you the best, thank you, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

And look at the "other titles" section of Cyrus the Great, and the main title I think should now be Shahensha of Persia, which if you look is most appropiate, I also did not remove anything you put there, only rearanged it, so that is it. I hope you can now agree!

Are you Amazzoni!
Hey, thanks for responding to my call. But the fact that the article on www.1911encyclopedia.org is OUTDATED, IS NOT THE ISSUE. You know, Herodotus is outdated too, but the info he provides most of the time is true. Anyways, if they find a tablet from Babylon that shows Cyrus' last breath, not reign was longer than what is said on Wikipedia. It means Wikipedia is outdated. Now, it is possible that by the time he reached the area of his final battle a year had passed, and if his death is ranged from 530-528 BC, I THINK IT WAS MOST LIKLEY IN 529 BC, a reign of 30 years. I'm currently researching to find such a tablet, and if it's found, then I will not outdate Wikipedia, but indated, goodbye.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Guess what, same guy here, I found it on the 1910 enyclopaedia, which you said was outdated, will I put it here to show that I can provide evidence too, and I'll put it on Cyrus's discussion page for others to decide. But I will continue to do more research on its existence, so it can be verified better. And here it is,--67.180.225.250 (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Hi, I need to do some research before getting back and discussing the new draft on Cyrus Cylinder. Talk to you there soon.--Larno Man (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron


I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Amizzoni. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Amizzoni~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Lisrt of satraps of Lydia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lisrt of satraps of Lydia. Since you had some involvement with the Lisrt of satraps of Lydia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Megabyzus (disambiguation)


The article Megabyzus (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)