User talk:Enki H.

 Canada WikiProject.

 ANE WikiProject.

 Visual arts WikiProject.

Sumerian Mythology Article
Sumerian Religion would probably be a more accurate name for the article. However, if such a change is made it should also be made to the Babylonian and Mesopotamian mythology articles, as both refer to scribal practices and such. The only mesopotamian religion article currently in existence is the very poorly constructed Assyro-Babylonian religion article.

Would it be appropriate to change the article name, then re-direct Sumerian mythology to Sumerian religion?

Best regards,

NJMauthor (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think ultimately they all should be "religion" pages with "mythology" sections. I think the reason you started the Sumerian page was that you too saw how the articles all suffer terribly from a 20th century focus on ancient myths, rather than looking at the topic based on the interpretation of available sources. Strategically, I think it is an excellent idea to start with the Sumerian page, bring that up to standard as a role model and then bring the others in line. As for the mechanics, the Sumerian religion page exists and redirects to Mesopotamian mythology. I have changed the redirect to Sumerian mythology but they still should be swapped. Since Sumerian religion does not have an empty history, the move would need to be made by an admin.
 * Propose the move on the talk page.
 * I will be happy to second it.
 * A few other opinions should accumulate as well.
 * Then the move can be proposed on Requested moves and a friendly admin will make the change.


 * While this unfolds, nothing prevents you from treating it as a "religion" page and editing on.

Actually if you wouldn't mind putting up the propose move template I'd appreciate it; after all this time I've never become good at templates. NJMauthor (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do you think the article should treat the deities themselves? They all have their own pages, albeit mostly Babylonian. NJMauthor (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an overview of the pantheon should be there, with enough information to identify the main players in the myths the article mentions. The individual deity pages will need to be fixed over time, we can't create a contents fork. I had planned to take on Inanna/Ishtar once I'm done with the Burney relief.


 * P.S. Were you thinking of separating Sumerian/Akkadian at Sargon? This would likely be very hard to do consistently. I think grouping Sumerian/Akkadian into one continuity then defining a break with Hammurabi (promotion of Marduk, conflict Inanna/Gilgamesh) would likely be more productive.

Cheers Enki H. (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NJMauthor (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I think it's possible to make distinctions between the Sumerians and Akkadians where they exist (and after Sargon, there's not much). Keeping the Akkadian and Sumerian material in the same articles with separate information on each, and where they overlapped or interacted, would be a good way of handling it.

In some instances (Enlil for example) the Akkadian dieties are more similar to their amorite babylonian counterparts than the original sumerian. The improvements, made on an article-by-article basis, will end up producing clear and understandable articles. NJMauthor (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I'll be on for a little while longer. Maybe he'll get bored. Thanks for the help. It's like dealing with a two-year-old. freshacconci talktalk 12:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Thanks for the Vandalism revert on my page. Appreciated, Otis  Jimmy  One  03:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-) Enki H. (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Palace Dinosaurs Please stop edit it. I trying to explain how full restoration of the animals was carried by Victor. And how post-war england have no tool to do the work.

Sistine Chapel ceiling
I have noticed your industrious efforts at Sistine Chapel ceiling. Unfortunately, you have linked several terms multiple times. According to WP:OVERLINK, redundant links should not commonly occur in our articles. Please undo the redundancies when you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. I could have sworn WP:LINK said: once per paragraph. Sure, once per section makes more sense. Enki H. (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Enki H. (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Giorgos
First, let me thank you for the sincere interest in the Elgin Marbles article. I trully appreciate your view but I would like to point out that this particular argument is still unsourced. I have never seen any such rationale put forward by the British side (if it has been I stand corrected). I feel that it must be omitted because it can set a precedent for inserting all sorts of unsourced claims whether legitimate or not. Respectfully--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Giorgios - this is in fact one of the most common arguments in restitution claims. I was worried that removing it outright will start an edit war. Lets put a fact tag on it and I'll go dig around. Enki H. (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, you've already done that ... excellent :-) Enki H. (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Enki, it is me who must thank you for your efforts. I used to edit this article a lot but my English is not up to the task. I still have to admitt that the only legal arguments I have in mind pertaining to the British position have to do with the charter of the Museum preventing the trustees from giving away any objects entrusted to the safekeeping of the Museum. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I think I found a source for the claim although my feeling is that it is still irrelevant to the official British position. No legal case has ever been brought against the British Museum and I 've never heard of any official endorsement of this argument from the british side. I' d appreciate your thoughts--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is consistent with my intuition: if there were an enforceable legal claim, the case would have gone before the courts by now. I would speculate that the BM as a cultural institution might not itself argue from the position of a legal technicality. That might be left to the lawyers in a lawsuit, not part of a public position. I'll dig around a little more somewhat later today. Enki H. (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt answer. My understanding is that the Greek side contests solely the legality of the acquisition and bases its modern claim on "moral" rather than "legal" or "legalistic" arguments. The insinuation is that since they had been illegally acquired by lord Elgin the British museum can lay no moral claim to the ownership. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Giorgios - I'm not sure where to start here. This whole article has over time become highly politicized and there is barely any description of the sculptures whatsoever. It needs copyediting, restructuring, adding (very much!) additional material and placing it into a larger, structured context, integrating it with the articles on the Acropolis, Parthenon, Metopes and Frieze. I think I can do something here but I need to (a) line up my sources (b) finish some other work I am doing here. You are right in that the particular argument that I reinserted is not currently an official position of th BM (because there is no legal challenge), but neither are some of the other arguments that the Telegraph has published from documents acquired under "Freedom of Information" legislation. I don't think I should change that immediately; its important to keep the entire context in mind to make sure it remains balanced. Fortunately the sources are reasonably well documented. Cheers. Enki H. (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased to see that we largely agree. The current status of the article is unfortunately the outcome of a very vitriolic situation that used to be the norm in earlier versions. I really wanted to take most of the inflammatory stuff out, but I had to compromise with presenting a more ballanced overview of both ends of the argument. If you ask me, most of the Athens and London sections need to go. The legality issue needs a lot of trimming. The "damage" section is hopelessly full of mistakes. The pros and cons of restitution eat up a much larger portion than they actually deserve.... etc. I won't pretend that I am neutral on the restitution issue (I 'd certainly prefer those marbles here in Athens) but I really can't figure out how we could ever achieve consensus -there are a good many people around all too eager to polarize and politicize the issue. Of course I won't pretend that this is just another "cultural reception" thingy with no strings attached. There are a lot of pertinent aspects to examine (colonialism, Imperialism, 19th century Antagonisms and "symbolic capital" manipulation, Cultutal Nationalism and Internationalism, forging of National Identities, post-colonial cultural reception, politics, the role of grand Museums etc., etc., etc.). Unfortunately I don't feel that wikipedia provides a "sober" enough enviroment for such discussions... (I am actually semi retired and I mostly fool around lately).If you have a look at the talk page you will see that the article used to be infested with all sorts of wild statements and inaccuracies and I had to limit myself to achieving a more ballanced presentation rather than a completely different structuring. As for sources... I feel that most of the newspaper articles are disgustingly polemic and that citations from such incredible travesties of scholarship as the works of the self-styled PHDiva Dorothy King are a definite no no--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And a comment of minor importance. This article did not gradually become higly politicised. It actually started like that--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're really on the same page on this. That's actually what I find interesting about the article - there are so many dimensions of past and contemporary significance. Whether Wikipedia is slowly "sobering" enough to reflect this here, we'll see. More soon. Enki H. (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy
If you have any interest in the matter, please read my comments at Articles for deletion/Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (2nd nomination), and then go ahead and look at the all-new version of Japanese cultural artifacts controversy. I would like to know if this radical change might change some minds. Un sch ool 03:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I have withdrawn my nomination. :-) Enki H. (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sumerian Mythology move
You're welcome. If you need any admin assistance with similar moves, or any other help, give me a shout. Graham 87 03:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

El Club de los Astronautas
This article was tidied up a bit by anonymous editors, but they removed your tags, so I've restored some of them.Autarch (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

James Robert Ford (Artist)
Hi - not quite sure if this is the way to discuss this. I am the assistant of James R Ford and have been updating bits of his page to give an overview of his work. I have only been doing this for a few years and the majority of information and images have now disappeared from his page - even content that was put there by others users before I started making additions. Please advise how to get this content back and how to tidy the page and make it legit.Rotobro (talk) 12:31, 01 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)