User talk:BigEars42

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, BigEars42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved post

Note: I moved your post at Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Image available for non-commercial use from the British Museum where it is more likely to receive a response. -- œ^™ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted a follow-up answer, but it requires me to do some digging, which i cannot do at the moment. Please send me a reminder if I don't follow up by Wednesday.--SPhilbrickT 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The name I was trying to remember is Wittylama. Liam appears to be still active; it may be worth contacting him, explaining the project, and seeing if something can be done.--SPhilbrickT 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Un-Redirects

To edit a redirect, go to the redirect and let it redirect you to the target page; in the upper left corner there will be a blue link saying you were redirected from the original page; click this link and it will take you to the redirect page with out the redirect taking effect and you can then click the edit tab and change the redirect like any other page. (This is the easy way, there is another way involving editing the URL to add a command not to follow the redirect.) RJFJR (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Shagarakti-Shuriash

The reason is that Assyriology includes the Akkadian, old Babylonian and neo-Babylonian periods imo. Clearly you are more knowledgeable than me so it's up to you to choose the wikiprojects which might fall within the article's scope.--Rafy talk 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have come to appreciate the German Wikipedia for its excellent coverage of Mesopotamian related articles. You can take a look at their version, Google translate usually does a descent job there if you have difficulties reading German.--Rafy talk 10:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Economic texts", archives

I replied to your post on my talk page. The wonderful thing of what you are inputting in the 'cuneiform histories', is that you are reading original material, unaltered, and non re-interpreted. As a result of doing Egyptian hieroglyphs, and some cuneiform, it is so.... satisfying living in a world of understanding, and 'seeing', but not with the eyes, with the "mind, heart, and soul". We live in this politically correct world of true Craziness, Overpopulation, Extinction-(Extirpation)... It was all done in the original "riverworld" societies of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and done in the 3rd and 2nd Millenniums BC... before the really big changes started with the full-blown production of the Iron Age, and the societal evolutions.

It is an adventure to watch all of this. I actually am as fascinated with how Wikipedia is going to be forced to evolve with the changes coming. So many articles (I think (IMHO)) are slanted, biased, and miss the mark. The articles are Old-School, based on all this "referenced" crap.... ("you can't teach what you don't know")). ....for now--(I'll look at some more of your articles, in Time....Right Now I am surviving 110 to 113 Degrees southwest Arizona-SonoranDesert Heat)(30 days so far equal or above 110 Deg))-(I added a N to "then" in the ReDirect discussion above...You do see how to get to the page, I assume?)Mmcannis (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Rabâ-ša-Marduk

Hello, and thank you for your commentary and contributions to Wikipedia. What you posted on my page does make sense, as he did appear to have a very lengthy career, as well as an illustrious one, as described by the source. I would be willing to use the term "lengthy" to describe the physician's career, but I would rather use factual data instead of that word, such as "...x year career". "Illustrious" is a term that I have POV and editorial concerns over; reason being is because the word is not extraordniarily detailed in itself. However, I could simply be overly concerned about the vocabulary, though, because I have received criticism on other pages while trying to edit such pages with WP:EDITORIAL on my mind. So, on a concluding thought, terms like "long" and "illustrious" are not terms that I'd use if writing or improving an article because of said WP:EDITORIAL concerns, but maybe I do overreact to similar terms on articles. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think those words would be acceptable for this page. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Mesopotamia template

Hi BigEars 42,

First off, I did not remove the templates because you wrote the articles, and second, please note that I acted in good faith. Why, then, did I make these changes? There is not a single reason but rather a number of smaller ones:

• To remove clutter (in general multiple side boxes on 1 page don't look good). You already have Template:Babylonian kings and Template:Assyrian kings, these allow easy access between the different kings, and I understand that navboxes should be used sparingly.
• To make room for the Template:Infobox monarch, which I think is a much more useful use of the topright corner of each of the king-articles than the Anc.Mes. template. Since some of the pages on kings do have the monarch infobox and others don't, it would also be much more consistent to give each king a monarch infobox.
• To prepare for a major revision of Template:Ancient Mesopotamia that I am working on, which, if of course accepted after discussion, will turn the template into a footer navbox (which in general look better than these side-templates, esp. if there are several on a page).
• The main text in each page on each king already gives access to the relevant pages (i.e. Babylonia, Assyria, or whatever country they ruled), and whom they fought etc); whereas the infobox links to a whole number of pages that are in most cases not relevant. For example, a link to Enûma Eliš which is linked in the Anc.Mes. navbox is not really relevant to most of the kings you have described.
• While apparently not an official policy, I do get the impression that most navboxes are actually indeed only included on the pages to which they actually refer.
• In general, the removal of this navbox from these pages is part of my attempt to get some 'top down' organization into Mesopotamia-related pages on WP, whereby I ultimately see Mesopotamia as the main access page from where people can go further and delve into more obscure pages.

I hope this clarifies things a little bit!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, a thousand wrongs don't make a right. I feel that putting these king-pages in [[Category:Kassites]] or something similar would achieve the same thing (i.e. links to relevant pages on Kassites/Assyria) without having the irrelevant links that are also in the Ancient Mesopotamia infobox. However, if you feel so strongly about it, feel free to revert; I am definitely not going to war about this.

PS, just out of curiosity, exactly because of which links in the infobox did you decide to put it in every article you made?--Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I got off a bad start. I would like to apologize for my earlier replies; I might have been a little bit too uncompromising. Just to be sure, the work you are doing is absolutely great, so I agree it would be better to accommodate that. If the best solution turns out to leave the original Anc.Mes. template in there, I will happily revert myself. For the moment however, maybe we can leave it as it is, especially since I need some time to think about a good solution to make these articles more accessible. The least I can do is try to upload the new template I have in mind for Ancient Mesopotamia in my sandbox, and then we can decide whether that still fits these articles, or whether a new template might be better. I'll see if I can do that tomorrow.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia

I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

List of kings of Babylon - edits by anon

Have you seen all the changes made today to List of kings of Babylon by 81.106.116.120‎. I don't know enough to be certain it is all vandalism or original research. Worth a check given you seem to have a strong interest in this period. Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I just wanted to check because the talk page for 81.106.116.120‎ had indicated problems in the past with inappropriate edits. --Chewings72 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions at Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu

Hello. I'm not sure if you saw my message on my talk page but I left some suggestions at Talk:Itti-Marduk-balatu for us to work through. With your knowledge of the subject it shouldn't take too long. Hope this helps, France3470 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover/however

You wrote:

I do not understand your edit in Nebuchadnezzar I. The "however" clearly refers to the preceding sentence. Can you explain why it makes no sense?BigEars42 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Because "however" implies a contradiction from the previous sentence, which is not what is happening there. Since he's not related, there's no reason that think the name should be retroactively applied. Where's the contradiction? The "moreover" implies that the two ideas build off of one another, as I think is what those sentences are doing? E.g., not only are they unrelated, but also there's no reason to apply the name retroactively. I hope that clears up my edit. I find the "however" confusing because I don't see an implied contradiction between the two sentences. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.109 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)