User talk:Leoboudv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2

Delete images[edit]

The DR Code is {{ffd|log=2009 April 9}} --Leoboudv (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:KlamathFalls Oregon USA.jpg[edit]

Apologies for my delayed response.

This picture shows the eastern shore of Klamath Lake, about 9 miles (14 km) north of the southern end of the lake, which is about where Klamath Falls is located. The man in the photo is standing roughly at the coordinates 42°21'40"N 121°47'22"W, looking west. These coordinates are on the side of a big hill, and if you come down to ground level here in Google Earth and look southwest, you will very clearly see the field that's visible in the picture. Where the man is standing is about 7 miles (11 km) north of the northernmost extent of Klamath Falls, as the crow flies.

I hope this clears things up. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I'd like to thank you for your user page at English Wikipedia. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

TAS[edit]

Hi, don't panic, the first season of TAS wasn't deleted, just redirected to a list of episodes.

If you type in the name of the episode in the search box, you'll get to the list of episodes. Scroll up to the top of the screen and you'll see a hyperlink to the old article, click on it and you can edit the article to remove the redirect and add any pertinent information.

You should make sure that you're adding plenty of relevant information to show that the episode is notable. To be honest, the TOS episodes are just about, given the amount of information that's been added, try and get as much as you can for TAS. Alastairward (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all the extra commentary to the TAS articles, I really did run up against a brick wall in trying to source a little bit of influence, critical commentary etc. "Inside Star Trek" by Solow and Justman doesn't cover much on the series, and even then only covered production. Yesteryear was easier to see some further influence but nothing else turned up.
Ironically enough though, when I was unpacking some books, I found my old copy of Altman and Gross in the middle of them all... Alastairward (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Thank you for the pictures! I'm sorry that you're ill, I hope you will get better soon. – Alensha talk 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mereruka[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mereruka, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Surrey School coordinates[edit]

All done! PKT(alk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, time has been tighter for me since May 4th......I'm in training for a new job. No guarantees as to when I might take care of the additional schools. Cheers! PKT(alk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I get coordinates from Google Maps. When you have a satellite view of the school/building/site/whatever, set your cursor over it, click right and select "What's here?" and the coordinates appear in the top search box (in decimal form) with a green arrow pointing at the building. PKT(alk) 11:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - my fault - I forgot to tell you about the way coordinates are represented. In the example you mentioned, "49.130004,-122.701779", the coords are 49.13 degrees North and 122.7 degrees West. However, I would rather use 49.12896,-122.703039; it's better to put the green pointer on the roof of the building, rather than outside the parking lot. It's for this reason that I use the satellite view (and street view as well to confirm I've got the right building). You can't rely on Google's landmarks to be correct. PKT(alk) 13:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ramesses I and other topics[edit]

Thanks for the message on my talkpage. I was just curious where the information about the siblings of Ramesses I came from. It would be really interesting to find out more about the family of this man. I know Cruz-Uribe wrote an article about him, but it's a while since I looked at that. I will see if I can find it and see if that where it comes from. I have noticed the work you have done over the years. I quickly realized your edits are of good quality. It will be nice to have more good quality images on wikimedia commons. I nicely illustrated article just is so much better (IMO anyways). Best regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

An option for editing on all wiki pages by Kam Solusar[edit]

PS: Have you considered creating an Unified login account? See Help:Unified login. If you convert your account to an Unified login account, you only need to login once to use your username on all projects.

Tefnakht[edit]

Dear Leoboudv,

Thank you for the photo. I'll include it in the article when I get around to writing it (I don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to do…)

I hope you've recovered from the flu and feel better now.

kind regards, – Alensha talk 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Chronology again[edit]

You may have already heard about the radiocarbon study that moves some dates back by a century (I had), but someone pointed it out here. I'm not sure what can be done about it until an Egyptologist publishes a revised chronology, but I thought I should let you know. A. Parrot (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Thutmose[edit]

I haven't seen Dodson's article, nor can I access it now. All I know is that Stephen Quirke wrote briefly about Thutmose in The Cult of Ra: Sun Worship in Ancient Egypt (2001). On page 152, it says: "Hieroglyphic inscriptions record that [Amenhotep III] had a son, Thutmose, who held the office of high priest of Ptah. Some have seen this as an elder son and heir apparent, and have asked why he did not ascend to the throne as co-regent. However, there is no instance where a king's son was appointed high priest and then succeeded to the throne. The lack of parallels may imply the opposite – that, if Thutmose was appointed high priest of Ptah, he was already excluded from the succession." Quirke mentions the cat sarcophagus, but he doesn't address the "crown prince" title. Maybe not all Egyptologists agree that the words that Dodson translates as "crown prince" actually mean that; maybe Quirke failed to read Dodson's article. I just thought, given that Dodson's view does not seem to be universal, that the article on Thutmose should avoid adopting that view in the title.

Maybe some more recent sources on the Amarna period can sort it out. A couple of books have been published since then, and they're probably easier to obtain than journal articles: Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet by Nicholas Reeves, and Akhenaten and Tutankhamun: Revolution and Restoration by David Silverman, Josef Wegner, and Jennifer Houser-Wegner. (Dodson published a book on Amarna in 2009, but it apparently begins with Akhenaten's Year 12 and presumably wouldn't address this issue.) A. Parrot (talk)

Looking for Anything Picture-wise for Your Ancient Egyptian Articles?[edit]

Hello there -- long time no speak! Sorry, have been busy with a number of things for a while, and have not been very active here since helping to bring the Rosetta Stone up to Featured status last year.

Business will take me to Cambridge, U.K. next week, and am planning on visiting the extensive Ancient Egyptian collection at the Fitzwilliam Museum while there and I plan on bringing my camera along (assuming non-flash photography is allowed). Is there anything you will like me to be on the look-out for to help illustrate any of the articles you have an interest in?

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sénakh-en-Rê Ahmès[edit]

Hello,

You can read our talk upon Sénakh-en-Rê Ahmès here.

Sincerely, Néfermaât (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv,
I thank you about your post on Senakht-en-Ra. Don't worry about, we have a talk with Nefermaât about the right method to change articles (Senakht-en-Ra, but Seqen-en-Ra and all relatives) and of course we will use the publication of Biston Moulin (I downloaded succesfully), the most complete publication we can have actually about the Karnak's discovery.
We talked also about the numbers given in some case to now three pharaos with the sa Ra name of Ahmes, respectively :
  • Ahmes Senakht-en-Ra of the 17th dynasty.
  • Ahmes Neb-pety-Ra of the 18th dynasty.
  • Ahmes sa-Neith Khnem-ib-re of the 26th dynasty.
About this last point of discussion precisely, we choose to not number these pharaos untill new egyptologicals sources.
I will change it asap ;) Thank you again. Best regards.
Sebi alias Neithsabes on Commons 01:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.93.128.163 (talk)

Ahhotep I[edit]

Many thanks for the remark on the picture in the German article of this queen. I checked that and the image is fine; it is just that the German articles have different numberings of both queens; Ahhotep I is Ahhotep II and vice versa. bw -- Udimu (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Diadem[edit]

Many thanks for the pic of Antef's diadem. That is an amazing good picture (I am never manage to get any pics out of flickr!) bw -- Udimu (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

the other similar crown, published by N. Reeves is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.;-) bw -- Udimu (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw the crown on display in the museum (try to find it on the museum database but could not find it, so do not have the museum number); they bought the crown about 5 years ago (please answer at the places where we started any discussion, ready the messages later i am always confussed abiut what was going on;-). bw -- Udimu (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Khufu II[edit]

It´s finally finished now. I have emended the part of the evaluations of the Greek traditions and other parts. Might satisfy you. Greetz;--Nephiliskos (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifa's policies on who gets Olympic medals...and who doesn't[edit]

I understand your point, each player on the roster gets a medal, if the team finished first, second or third. A team like Great Britain had one injured player and was replaced by an alternate, but since the team did not finish in first three positions, it did not matter. Japan and USA both received 18 medals for their second and first place finish. Presumably Canada received 18 bronze medals like other two teams. Canada has 20 players listed in the roster with none of the players reported to have been replaced. Looking at the statistics for the players at fifa.com, Zurrer and Booth did not play any minute, and therefore are actually alternates. To confuse the issue even more, Nicole Barnhart is a standby goal-keeper who did not play any minute but was on the roster and received a medal, and was seen presented a medal in the medal ceremony. Searching official websites of FIFA and Olympic does not reveal who actually received the medal. Best Regards, -- Harvardton (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I watched all the women's soccer game by television. There were 18 players from each USA, Japan and Canada teams, receiving a medal each in the medal ceremony. If a player is injured and was replaced, these two players can share a medal, that way, 18 medals can be shared by 19 or more playeres. In any event, it is a team sport, a player can play every minutes or no minute at all. Besides a player can gift her medal to anyone. This has been quite interesting, and I am not looking into this anymore. Thanks for your postings. Best regards, -- Harvardton (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apepi (pharaoh)[edit]

I had a look at the article and will work on it. I think the basic information are fine, just do not know what is that about the son Apepi (do not have the Dodson book here). What I always find difficult is the mixture of different sources. Some people refer to very general coffee-table books, other people refer to hardcore research publications; the result is a mixture of hard facts and opinions. They are often not clearly distinguished as facts and opinions. If objects are mentions I always like to refer to the publication of the objects; for conclusions and opinions I prefer more general books (still research publications). all the best -- Udimu (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from Cairo Museum[edit]

Hi there! Wow, that picture of the Senet game intrigued me. I put it here: [1]. Thx for telling, the pic of king Khafra is also fantastic! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We should clearly show our gratitude to ddenise! Superb job! Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New pictures[edit]

Dear Leoboudv, many thanks for the news of additional pictures you mentioned on my talk in the Dutch Wikipedia. Being an author I spend most of my time writing books and only scarcely look at my Wikipedia pages. But in the near future this will surely happen and I will arrange to fit in the images you made available in the right place with the right subtexts in the Dutch (and Flemish!) Wikipedia. Thanks again an kind regards. Ben Pirard (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


A treasure trove of pictures[edit]

Dear Leoboudv, I recently discovered a FlickR account with photos of hundreds of rarely seen objects and monuments. The FlickR account is : Juan R. Lázaro. I am currently in contact with the author of the photographies and he accepted enthusiastically that his photos be used on Wikipedia. How should we proceed in order to make sure that everything is alright when it comes to copyright ? Should he upload the photos on wikicommons himself or can I do it on his behalf ?

His photos are just amazing: he has photos of statues and artifacts representing obscur pharaohs of the SIP like Mentuhotep VI, Sobekhotep II and Neferhotep II, photos of the treasures found in the tomb of Awibre Hor, photos of the funerary furniture of the queen of Sekhemresementawy Djehuty, photos of statues of Khafra that I had never seen, an artifact clearly mentioning a Ka house of Djet and many more things... It's an endless stream of rarely seen stuff. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright barnstar[edit]

Telif inceleme.png Copyright master
This is a reward and a thank-you message for your precious help regarding the complicated world of copyrights ! Iry-Hor (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For the beautiful picture of Djesertetj's ivory label! What superb quality! It's a list of delivered linen for the king's afterlife. The inscription in the lower section describes different types of clothes such as bed sheets, shirts, nightgowns, vestments and even underwear. The central section names them or describes their size and colour. The upper section bears the reading "the king lives!", at the right several horus falcons are depicted, the line on which they sit ends in a ostrich feather (a symbol of light and harmony). Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

GAR[edit]

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Cox cropped photo[edit]

By any chance did you delete the cropped photo of Stephanie Cox (used for the Women's football taskforce userbox) from Wikimedia Commons? The version you subbed is too big. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes. I did. Sorry, I did not know this. But if you wish to upload a new version on Commons, someoneone will mark it. Best Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This User's Images[edit]

Shouldn't all this user's "free" images be speedily deleted since he had a history of copyright violations and typing in fake OTRS tickets--at least the ones without a real OTRS ticket? Just wondering. I am not really active on Wikipedia, more on Commons, but one of his images was transferred to Commons from Wikipedia here and I just tagged it as a probable copyvio. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're contacting me specifically, but I think this is one for WP:CCI. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Major blunder[edit]

Hello, I just noticed a major problem with the identification of Sobekhotep I and II. Recently, the tomb of Sobekhotep I was discovered in Abydos, however, the archeologists are actually referring to Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep and not Khaankhre Sobekhotep. This is a big problem because on wikipedia the article Sobekhotep I points to Khaankhre Sobekhotep whom the archeologist would refer to as Sobekhotep II. The problem is further obscured by the fact that the dynastic position of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep is debated, with some egyptologists seeing him as the founder of the 13th dynasty and others believing it was Wegaf. In the latter case, Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep would be Sobekhotep II and Khaankhre Sobekhotep I. In any case, the mistake here is terrible because I and others have been editing the article Sobekhotep I with the discovery of the tomb when the rest of the article talk about Khaankhre Sobekhotep, who, regardless of the position of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep in the dynasty, is not the owner of the tomb. I should add that if we do not do this, people from all over the web who heard about the discovery of the tomb will type "Sobekhotep I" and end up on the page of Khaankhre Sobekhotep when archeologists talk about Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Thus it is urgent to do something, and to avoid problems of who is I and II, we should just name the articles "Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep" and "Khaankhre Sobekhotep". I have Ryholt's book, Baker's book and the Petrie Museum website confirming this blunder. I do not know how to change an article title, so please help me! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It looks like the Sobekhotep I article has already been renamed to Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I finally did it after A. Parrot told me how to. Thanks anyway! I will soon edit the article further with an extended discussion of the chronological position of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yaqub-Har again[edit]

I just read the German wiki article on Yaqub-Har and they wrote something which surprised me: they identify him with Aper-Anati. Is that something stated somewhere by a reliable scholar? The German wiki source for this is here, which is completely unhelpful and does not look very reliable to me. Do you know more on this ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that I don't know anything about Yaqub-Har per se sadly or any connection with Aper-Anati. Perhaps Udimu might know more. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Allright, thanks anyway, it seems the German wiki is dead wrong on this one. At least neither von Beckerath, nor Ryholt and Baker see Aper-Anati as the same person as Yaqub-Har. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright advice[edit]

Hello Leoboudv, I have a contact at the CNRS Centre Franco-Égyptien d'Étude des Temples de Karnak, he says CNRS can give permission for the use of its pictures to individual websites, however under the condition that the images cannot be reused on other websites without additional agreement on the CNRS behalf. He and I think that this will not do on wikicommons, but I just wanted to have your opinion on the matter. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This restriction is not possible for Wikicommons because the image must be free for use on wikicommons/Wikipedia as well as any other website...that the copyright owner may like or dislike since Wikipedia/wikicommons cannot control the use of images uploaded on its website. Look at the permission statement for this image which was likely also archived in the OTRS ticket. It says "for Wikipedia and anyone else." "with no restrictions." Almost the same for this image Both images are on Wikicommons. Today the copyright owner must mention the name of the image license such as CC BY SA 3.0 Generic--but this image was uploaded in 2006 so I guess it was OK then when the rules were more liberal but the meaning is clear enough: a free license with no restrictions for anyone to use. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you...[edit]

...mind if you'd join this discussion I started? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ramses XI[edit]

Dear Leoboudv,

Thank you for your response.

To correct a statement. You write: "The Turin Taxation Papyrus was called a papyrus by Thijs in GM 173 when it is actually just a houselist, I agree."

I'm afraid you are mistaken: the Turin Taxation Papyrus is indeed a papyrus, as stated correctly in GM 173. The Houselist, however, is a mere entry on P. BM 10068. You should not mix up the two. They are separate entities, as stated quite explicitly in GM 173. The Viceroy appears in the Turin Taxation Papyrus, not, as you suggest, in the houselist.

The issue of the return of Pinehesy has been dealt with extensively in

-Thijs, SAK 31 (2003), 289-306

-Thijs, SAK 35 (2006), 307-326

I hope you agree that, to be fair, rejection of the reappearance scenario in the pages of Wikipedia should at least incorporate the evidence given there, in order to give the readers the opportunity for a fair judgment. Merely stating that the reappearance of Pinehesy is 'impossible' or 'problematical' without reference to the actual evidence underlying the case for a reappearance would go against the very principles of scholarship.


There is nothing inherently wrong with someone returning to the stage after having fallen from grace. History is full of examples. E.g. Winston Churchill, who had become virtually persona non grata after the debacle of Gallipoli, but who gloriously returned to lead England in WW II. This in itself is not an insurmountable problem and should not be presented as such, given that the author has provided detailed explanations to explain such a scenario. To name but one thing: there is evidence suggesting that by year 10 Piankh may have set out to negotiate with Pinehesy rather than attack him. Such a scenario might readily explain his return. Other explanations are also possible. In fact, the onus is on the shoulders of anyone who would want to posit the very impossibility of a return to office of Pinehesy, given the complicated political situation of the time.


By the way, can you cite any hard objections given by Egyptologists against the possibility of a return? Do you know of any serious rebuttals of the theory as given in SAK 31 and 35 or is it only your assumption that this is the reason why "most Egyptologists" reject ascription to the Whm Mswt?


Rejecting a theory is easily done. By far the easiest way is to simply ignore it. That does not account for much. Rejection should be somewhat more than a gratuitous act. It follows that, by definition, calling in the silent majority as active rejecters is also a bit tricky. Perhaps the safest option is to assume that those who did not publicly take a stand should be treated as neutral-until-proven-otherwise.

On the other hand, Dodson's acceptance is based on a detailed study, which should account for something, especially since the theory he accepts is labeled quite controversial. He would never lay his head on the block if he had not carefully weighed the evidence. BTW, Aston's remark is not as damaging as you suggest. He calls the theory "controversial" and "rejected by most Egyptologists" but also calls the crucial starting point hard to ignore. Why focus on the first part of his statement and not on the second?

Regarding the "rejected by most Egyptologists": you should also read

-Thijs, GM 240 (2014), 69ff

There it is made objectively clear that most objections raised so far are based on misinterpretations or faulty reasoning.

A case in point is the mistaken identity of the Chief Workman Nekhemmut as presented on the Wikipedia page. Every Egyptologist can tell you that he was the son of Chief Workman Khons (e.g. Bierbrier, Late New Kingdom, 30, Chart VIII) and not the son of Amenua. Contrary to what was suggested, these were clearly distinct individuals. Still, this bit of sloppy research has been presented on Wikipedia for decades, if not years, as actual evidence against the case for a redistribution of sources to the Whm Mswt. I hope you agree that this should never have happened: a detailed theory has unnecessarily been damaged (to what extent?) by incorrect statements. IMHO, in most cases it is better not to contribute than to contribute material which is based on insufficient knowledge. That is the only way to keep Wikipedia a reliable source of information.

Likewise, the observation on the discrepancy in the titles of (Chief) Doorkeeper Dhuthotpe in P. Mayer A is misleading to the uninformed reader, since it should have been mentioned that the more modest title appears in an abandoned entry (see my previous TALK). It is a little strained to bring this case forward as ‘evidence against’, while one could even argue that the best way to explain the unfinished entry of 5.15 is to assume that it was abandoned precisely because exact titles mattered to the scribe! Whatever one's preferred explanation, given this undeniable ambiguity, I think the issue does not belong in Wikipedia. The reader should not be bothered with such minor issues which can be explained either way. Naturally, serious objections against the redistribution of sources to the Whm Mswt should be brought forward, but, especially with 'damaging' statements, one should be very, very carful, especially on a forum of non specialists as Wikipedia.

With kind regards,

Neferkere (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I have edited the Houselist to say it is a document and not called it a papyrus. I Do agree with you that a rejection of the reappearance scenario in the pages of Wikipedia should at least incorporate the evidence given there, in order to give the readers the opportunity for a fair judgment. If you have some evidence, please feel free to incorporate it into the Ramesses XI article. Dodson has accepted Thijs ideas in his book Afterglow of Empire--but no one else and that is important. I know what Thijs says about the titles but the omission of the title 'Chief' Doorkeeper is important shows that the ancient scribes were not consistent in recording people's status in society occasionally in their documents. As for Pinehesy, after Year 1 of the whm-mswt (or Year 19 proper of Ramesses XI, he was considered an enemy of the king and Ramesses XI dispatched Piankhy to remove him from Thebes...which resulted in civil war. Piankhy may have said in a letter that Ramesses XI's authority was weakened but he still officially served under Ramesses XI and fought Pinehesy. The Egyptian authorities in Upper Egypt considered Pinehesy an enemy of the state which means that the Year 12 houselist would date before Year 1 of the whm-mswt. Most Egyptologists do not accept his views and you would be doing a disservice if you try to present his ideas as 'facts'. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I write here without opening a new section because the two subjects are related; is about an edit by User:Neferkere in the article Wehem Mesut, I can't check one of the two sources cited by him/her and I obviously assume good faith, but I'm not sure if stating that "Kitchen's argumentation is clearly erroneous" would be fine as it is. I mean, Kitchen seems to have committed an error indeed, but I guess that there is no way we simple wiki users can judge if a scholar is wrong. Assuming that the sentence is Thijs' claim, how can we rewrite it in a more properly form? Khruner (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neferkere is actually correct in his clarification of my original edit which referred to Kitchen's arguments. In Kitchen's traditional TIPE chronology, the date should belong to Smendes--and no kings name is attached to this graffito which is anonymous. Kitchen never argued that it belonged to the whm-mswt era before until he later saw that other Egyptologists wanted to extended Ramesses XI's reign beyond his 28th regnal year. Then suddenly, he suggested it belonged to the whm-mswt era. I should have ben more careful here when I quoted Kitchen. Neferkere's clarifying edit is correct Khruner. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know Neferkere's right, but my concern was about the aforementioned sentence; do you think it's okay to leave it as it is? Khruner (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I understand what you mean now Khruner. I have slightly rewritten the Wehem Mesut article to make Thijs' criticisms more neutral and make the reader understand that Kitchen's interpretation of the graffito here are problematic. Neferkere has read Thijs' GM 240 (2014) article while I have not. I plan to read it when I have the time at University but I visit my University only 1-2 times a year now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit, Leoboudv. Maybe I'll try to find this article too. Khruner (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I bought a copy of Kitchen's 3rd edition 1995 TIPE book and he never said this graffito dated to the whm-mswt era. Now he does so. Very strange. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
True, he most likely had fixed his opinion about this graffito in the timeframe 1995-2007, when there was the conference. I guess this is not uncommon, just compare the standard TIPE (1972) with the later supplement (1986); just an example, the reign length of Iuput I, and so on. Khruner (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
In Kitchen's TIPE 1995 book, he assigned graffito 1393 to the reign of Siamun after I checked my TIPE book carefully here. I made an edit here. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
To Siamun? I think you mean Smendes (Year 12), and that you have checked § 382, no. 23. Same here, anyway. Khruner (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You are correct. Kitchen assigned it to Smendes...and I have corrected that information now. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)




Dear Leoboudv,


You wrote: "I have edited the Houselist to say it is a document and not called it a papyrus." I am afraid this is not an improvement: the houselist is not a document. It is a mere entry on papyrus BM 10068.

You wrote: "I Do agree with you that a rejection of the reappearance scenario in the pages of Wikipedia should at least incorporate the evidence given there, in order to give the readers the opportunity for a fair judgment. If you have some evidence, please feel free to incorporate it into the Ramesses XI article."

I am afraid I find your stance a little strange, if not incorrect. Personally, if I were informed that an author whose theory I have publically called “impossible” (which is quite a bold statement, I hope you will agree) has elsewhere given ample evidence which I have not read, I would retract my explicit damning statement until I had done my homework. Simply reintroducing your original statement (“However, this is not possible since the viceroy Pinehesy was listed ...in the Year 12 Turin taxation papyrus”) is hardly doing the readers of Wikipedia a service. The readers do not know that the theory you condemn so vehemently is one you are only poorly informed about. How can you condemn this scenario as if you are an expert on the subject if you haven’t even read SAK 31 and SAK 35?

You seem to suggest that I have been trying to present ideas as ‘facts’. Please give me one example where I did that. If I did, I will be the first to remove that entry, since it is my only aim to present recent discussions in Egyptology in an objective and factual way. So far, I believe that your “impossible” statement is exactly what you more or less accused me of: your own idea presented as a ‘fact’.


You wrote: “I know what Thijs says about the titles but the omission of the title 'Chief' Doorkeeper is important shows that the ancient scribes were not consistent in recording people's status in society occasionally in their documents”. Once again, I find your reaction not comme il faut. Now that you have been informed that one of the entries was actually abandoned by the scribe, possibly because he realised that he had just written down an incorrect title for Dhuthotpe, you can’t just return to your original statement as if this alternative is not relevant. It could be argued that by simply reintroducing this bit into the Wikipedia page of Ramesses XI you are actively misinforming readers. The very example you present to them for your point of view can be turned upside down and just as easily used to show that the scribes did care about correct titles. The first time around you didn't know this. The second time you did not have that excuse. Also here, you present your own onsesided idea as ‘fact’, actively withholding the uninformed reader the alternative explanation, which, as you said yourself is a disservice to Wikipedia (and harmful to someone else's theory, we might add).


You recently wrote on the Ramesses XI page: “Henceforth, Piankh acting on Ramesses XI's authority expelled Pinehesy from Upper Egypt in a series of civil wars until Year 10 or Year 11 of the whm-mswt (when Piankh returned from his Nubian campaigns and likely died to be succeeded in office by Herihor) and Pinehesy disappears from Egypt's political history. This demonstrates that the Taxation papyrus—and its near contemporary, the House-list, pre-date the whm-mswt era and actually belong to Year 12 proper of Ramesses XI when he was not an enemy of king Ramesses XI. Hence, the House-list must be assigned to Year 12 of Ramesses XI before the whm-mswt started.”

-There is absolutely no hard evidence to link Piankh to Pinehesy prior to year 10 Whm Mswt. As you well know, it has always been thought that Herihor preceded Piankh. We know absolutely nothing about the role played by Piankh (if any!) during the suppression of Amenhotep. Neither do we know for certain what Piankh set out to do in year 10 Whm Mswt.

-And "a whole series of civil wars"? What is your primary evidence for this? I don't think many Egyptologists will want to call the expedition of year 10 a civil war.

-To conclude from statements during year 1 and 2 of the Whm Mswt that Pinehesy must of necessity still have been an enemy a decade later is a giant leap of faith. I know scores of people (or countries) who were friends, fell out, but later made up again. It is possible that he was still an enemy in year 10, but this is by no means hard fact. Therefore, it should not be presented as such. You cannot disprove a theory by merely stating another theory...

Neferkere (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dhutmose says in LRL 4 papyrus that Piankh is going to the place in Nubia...where Pinehesy is. That is clear enough evidence that Piankh knows Pinehesy (the former Viceroy of Kush) and they are connected somehow in time to each other as most scholars view. The Houselist is a list--that is fair--it is a list on a papyrus document but no Egyptologist accept Thijs' theories that Ramesses IX and X were contemporary with Ramesses except Dodson--and even now Aston has pointed out that Dodson's chronology has problems because he has to date Ramesses II's accession at 1265 BC to make Thijs' theory work but it cannot work since Horemheb had a 14 year reign--not 26 or 27 years--(everyone accepts this today) which means that Ramesses II likely ruled earlier in time at perhaps 1279 BC or even 1290 BC. Karl Jansen Winkeln, Von Beckerath Rolf Krauss rejects Thijs ideas and no one has made his ideas work with Egypt's 19th and 20th century chronology. Thijs says in his 2003 SAK paper that Pinehesy was pardoned by Ramesses XI after all the years of war (and death and misery) he caused and allowed to return and even serve as viceroy of Kush again in Year 12 of the whm-mswt but I don't accept this--since this is just a theory by Thijs to make his ideas work. THE TEST is this....if Pinehesy was really pardoned why was he never mentioned again in Egypt's records and why did the High Priests of Amun who succeeded pharaoh in Upper Egyptalso lose control of Kush? The answer is logical: Pinehesy was Never pardoned and simply remained in Kush where he died far away from the authority of Egypt--after all the pain and deaths that his conflict caused with Ramesses XI. This is not a giant leap of faith at all. This means that the Year 12 Houselist likely dates to the pre-whm-mswt era...unless you accept Thijs 'theory' that there were 2 separate Viceroys of Kush conveniently named Pinehesy--the second who served in Yr 12 of the whm-mswt. I don't and most Egyptologists don't either. Until most Egyptologists (except Dodson) accept Thijs ideas, I suggest you don't post them in Ramesses XI's article since they will fail verifiability. We don't put one person's speculative theories in an article until most scholars accept them.

  • Remember: until a few years ago, was it not Dodson himself who said that Psusennes II had no independent reign and served as a contemporary with Shoshenq I until F. Payraudeau found that dated Nesankhefenmaat family annal document which showed that Psusennes II had his own dated reign length and was Siamun's successor. In this case, other Egyptologists didn't accept Dodson's ideas here too...and Dodson was proven to be wrong and he accepted this fact eventually. The fact that there are inconsistencies in the use of titles in the ancient documents just means that one must be careful in using them--that is all I meant since the ancient writers assumed that their audience assumed/knew that Dhuthotpe was the chief doorkeeper here in their papyrus records. Some scribes made mistakes even in recording a king's accession date in the 20th dynasty at Deir el-Medina. People are human beings and make mistakes...and we cannot accept our sources at face value without testing all the evidence in them. Unless you accept that there were 2 Viceroys of Kush named Pinehesy under Ramesses XI or that Pinehesy was pardoned by Ramesses XI (and most Egyptologists don't accept this either)--Thijs theory doesn't work in dating the Houselist to Year 12 of the whm-mswt era.
  • PS: Its clear to me that Herihor succeeded Piankh as High Priest sometime after Year 10 of the whm-mswt since all the documents that mention him connect him to the whm-mswt era or to the transition around the end of Ramesses XI's reign as Karl Jansen Winkeln noted. Also at the Khonsu temple, he first depicts his service under Ramesses XI and then later depicts himself as a king himself. So, this second development likely occurred after Ramesses XI had died. He was in turn succeeded by Pinedjem I, Piankh's son, as the decorations at Khonsu temple suggest. We agree to disagree. Thank You for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nekauba[edit]

Hello, I have seen your recent edits on Nekauba. I admit that I have only Ryholt's article while I never read Perdu's one, but I got confused while reading about Tefnakht I and II; you wrote that Tefnakht II is well attested and that exist a donation stela dating to him, and later that Necho I would have been Tefnakht I's immediate successor. Maybe I don't know something important from Perdu's article, but I feel that it should be more logical to swap the ordinal numbers of the two Tefnakhts here... Khruner (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think its best to keep the numbers--Tefnakht I and II--the same since Stephinates Tefnakht would be Tefnakht I. Ryholt thinks that Necho I would be Tefnakht II's successor. He does not say Necho I was Tefnakht I's successor in his paper. So, Ryholt follows the normal numbering of the two Tefnakht kings...and I think that is fair here since there were clearly two different kings of Sais with the name Tefnakht--they just belonged to different dynasties. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I probably messed with my English, since we are agreeing to the same thing. Let me explain:
  • We both agree that — assuming that Ryholt is right — Necho I was Tefnakht II's immediate successor, but the article says that Necho I was Tefnakht I immediate successor, and this obviously could not be true;
  • The article also says that Tefnakht II was well attested and that exist a donation stela dating to him, but as far as I known Tefnakht II is completely unattested, even his name is temptative (a reading of Stephinates) so how can exist a stela dating to his reign, i. e. presumably carrying his name? So I guessed that the well attested Tefnakht must be Tefnakht I instead, and that the stela should be datable to his reign. I hope now is more clear what I meant. Khruner (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are right. Ryholt does say that Necho I was Tefnakht II's immediate successor...and I think the numbering system should be kept the same because according to English wiki's article on Tefnakht II, Ryholt writes in a footnote (I did not read this paper) that Necho I was the son of a king named Tefnakht according to a papyrus. Since Shepsesre Stephinates (who most scholars assume is Tefnakht I) was succeeded by Bakenranef who was overthrown by the 25th dynasty Nubian kings...obviously Necho's father must have been a second later king of Sais named Tefnakht. I think it best to leave the matter like this unless most Egyptologists stop calling Stephinates Tefnakht...but most currently do. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I am very sorry but I see that I can't make myself understood, I have to blame my English but I want to try again since I feel this is important. I simply can't dare to change the numbering system for two reasons: I am not an academic and I completely agree with the actual numbering system which includes two Tefnakhts (note that there is no Shepsesre Stephinates):
  • Tefnakht I Shepsesre, Tnephachthos/Technatis in Greek. The father of Bakenranef, quite well attested by monuments and Greek sources;
  • Tefnakht II, Stephinates in Greek. The father of Necho I as for Ryholt, only reported by Manetho (Eusebius, Africanus) and possibly only attested on Ryholt's papyrus, so quite not enough to be the "well attested" Tefnakht as reported on Nekauba's article.
I would ask you to please read again the part of Perdu's paper where is mentioned the donation stela of Tefnakht II, as I am rather sure even without reading it (I can't) that the donation stela belongs to Tefnakht I instead. If the stela had really belonged to Tefnakht II, it would have been a rather sensational discovery since it would provide the earliest archaeological evidence of a proto-saite dynasty ruler. In addition to what I write, I'll make the change that I thought to do to the Nekauba article so you can double-check what I mean, and you can eventually keep it or reject it. Khruner (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Basing on what is said on Tefnakht II's article, Perdu noted that a stela of Year 2 of Necho I is similar in style to a stela of Year 8 of Tefnakht I. He then claimed that the two kings must have lived closer in time, and stated that Tefnakht I ruled some decades later than the mainstream vision, shortly before Necho I. Even assuming that Perdu is right (and most Egyptologist thinks otherwise) he never states that the Year 2 stela belongs to Tefnakht II. Khruner (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just at my University in Vancouver Canada yesterday and can tell you that it does not cary any French Egyptological journals. I did not copy Thijs' GM 240 paper since Thijs was concentrating mainly on other scholar's treatment of his theories (such as Thomas Schneider and a two others whose names I barely recall) and Kitchen never mentioned Thijs' work. Thijs complained that most scholars ignored his papers. The only non-English journal my University carries is SAK and Agypten und Levante which is now available online--if you are at the University campus. So, I cannot read Perdu's paper anyway. Perhaps Ryholt made an error here then and should said that the stela belonged to Tefnakht I then. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Same here, my University doesn't have the journal I needed. And again same here, I think that Ryholt made a little mistake. Khruner (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. By the way, where is your University located? Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It's the University of Bologna, in Italy, but I have to say that my field of study and my interest in ancient Egypt are completely unrelated... Khruner (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank You. Egyptology is a hobby to me but I have contacted several Egyptologists by E-mail in the past and am on EEF. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. Some times ago I and Iry-Hor were close to contact Ryholt about a question, but we resolved it before e-mailing him. And in the future maybe I will try to contact Olaf Kaper if he doesn't publish the article about the disappearance of the lost army of Cambyses, but I'm definitely going off topic... Khruner (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Pharoahs[edit]

I redirected today, that's why. It was terribly unsourced article and had nothing in it which the main article did not. I think it will stay without controversy. Cosprings (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)