User talk:Captmondo/Archives/2010/July

FA for the Latin Tabula Rosettana

This was achieved today, so I've claimed a prize for it. I don't yet know whether this will be honoured -- Liam was not so very keen in advance, though mollified when I confirmed I'd work on the en:wiki article too! Anyway I am still anxious to get the English article up to FA standard and I think we're nearly there. Later today I want to complete the footnoting of the decipherment section and add something about the dates in the inscription: I've already done this on Vicipaedia.

To me this is all part of the same project: hence I've named you and la:Usor:Iustinus and la:Usor:Neander as co-workers, and if the prize does materialize, we split it four ways. Hope this is OK ... Andrew Dalby 12:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving the FA for the Latin version of the article! I gather that the prize is only eligible for single contributors who bring an article up to FA status, so if that is true the English version of the article will unfortunately not qualify. Having said that, I am not in it for the prize, but because of my interest in the subject material. (If I am wrong and we do somehow qualify, I will very likely buy a book on some aspect of Egyptology from the BM that I do not already own. ;-)

As you can see I have managed to fill in some of the "red links" last night, and I believe have satisfactorily concluded the sub-section on repatriation. There's still a couple of red links to take care of (strictly speaking not necessary for an FA nomination, but it does seem to help) and I want to add a couple more sentences on how the RS was modified in the early 19th century for display purposes.

Cheers, and again, congratulations on the FA on Vicipaedia! Captmondo (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, wait and see :) But as for collaboration, I think that's OK: quote: "In the event that multiple users claim a prize for the same article, they will need to agree among themselves how to allocate the prize."

I agree, the redlinks thing is important, and I will work on some of these too. Andrew Dalby 13:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick point on the red links: when creating a new article, ensure that the person is indeed notable. I ended up de-linking John Cripps from the article because the only thing notable (that I could find) about him was the minor role he played in getting the RS for Britain, which in and of itself is probably not notable enough to have a whole article devoted to him. Articles for the likes of the savants and Turner definitely fit the notability criteria.

Nice to hear that I may be mistaken about the prize. It's an added "bonus", but ultimately not a compelling reason for doing the work on the article. ;-) Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On the redlinks: yes, agreed. Thanks for checking on Cripps: you never know till you check. Same with D'Hautpoul, unfortunately: I can't discover which member of this family he was. But, on the other hand, it's often worth checking other Wikipedias. I've added interwiki links to two of yours today that were already on fr:wiki, and I've found that two of my new ones (including that fellow Tlepolemus) were already on de:wiki. Andrew Dalby 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on checking the other Wikipedias—I managed to derive a good chunk of information from the French version of Wikipedia for the various savants. Nice work on Tlepolemus btw—I didn't think of checking the German Wikipedia for a relevant entry on him. It is worth noting that sometimes objections are made when only a non-English source is used to corroborate a point on the English Wikipedia, which is why I shied away from being too extensive in the articles I tackled on the French characters involved in the story (compare entry on Charles_Dugua to the relatively meager English version I did as an example of what I mean). Also, do not go out of your way to inter-link the articles, as there is a robot that does that function on a regular basis. Captmondo (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On that last sentence: our experience at Vicipaedia is that the bots need initial help with this. If at least one interwiki link is added, they very rapidly fill in the rest. Otherwise, you might wait a long time.

Now the even better news: look at the British Museum Shop, decide on something you want up to £25, and email me the details. I am to co-ordinate the order: the mailing cost will then be paid by the BM. The link is [1]. You can email me via my userpage, I think: tell me if there's a problem. Andrew Dalby 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't email you directly (I need to verify my existing email address in order to see yours, and am not in a place where I can access my home account at the moment). If you see this, my first choice would be "Egypt from Alexander to the Copts" (http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org/invt/cmc19526/?stylecat=bookshop), but that's equal to the full amount. Otherwise I would be just as happy with the considerably cheaper "Mummy Portraits" (http://www.britishmuseumshoponline.org/invt/cmc50703/?stylecat=bookshop).

It's a terrible thing to point me at a bookstore and give me carte blanche to choose what I like. ;-)

I'm not kidding myself that the work is done as yet. Despite having done solid work on the RS article, from past experience the Peer Review/Feature Article review processes will be demanding. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gilmour'sAlbum-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gilmour'sAlbum-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rosetta Stone (en.wikipedia article) review

Hi there! Long time, no talk. Anyway, I took a few minutes to read the article, & my initial reaction was that it is solid with no obvious omissions, although I could quibble a little about some of the wording here & there. My chief bit of concern was that I couldn't view File:RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.jpg in my browser for some reason -- has anyone else commented on this? I'll think about the article & see if I can make any other suggestions. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remember to post there when I have something more substantial to say. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough (and thanks). ;-) Captmondo (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi, I have fixed this this problem. Thanks for pointing it out. Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the Rosetta Stone article is as good as its going to be right now. I don't know much about its history and can't help much sadly. I just gave it a brief copyedit where I added a few missing commas. It should be a featured article at its present state. Best wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit and for the comments! Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. No problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go for it. Andrew Dalby 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just started the nomination process for the article. Keep an eye on this page. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-Joseph Marcel

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nubayrah Stele, Damanhour Stele

After many types of Google search parameters: (I saw the JSTOR ref.)-(Damanhour/hur didn't come up with much)..the only item I didn't look at, was a later Google Book entry, A Budge book from 1993? or so; it just seemed to reference a statement.

Nubayrah, was claimed to be near "Damanhur" (wikipedia name). I don't know if wiki Noubarya is the same (about 60-75 mi SSW of Damanhur).. (I assume it must be.) The texts seem to say Nubayrah was on the Canopic branch, (Canopic which is a redirect to Canopus, Egypt).. I tried googling various combos of damanhur (damanhour), memphis, decree, museum, boulaq, bulaq.. so not much came up. My assumption, is that the Egyptologists became busy will the SO MUCH greater amount of items in Egypt, ...temples, papyri, etc...(Even the Amarna letters which Budge got involved with (all of Mesopatamia)).. --So I made a ReDirect for Damanhour Stele to the Nubayrah Stele. (And thanx for being understanding,) You... probably know that I'm the one that did all the XXXXXX (hieroglyph) articles (Not (1) other ONE was made on the entire planet....) PLEASE, I spent 5 months making the hieroglyph categories in WikiCommons. IF.... you have not looked at the 2 Meteor Photographs, one I used for the Stair-single (hieroglyph)... but please look at the Stele-(High Res double-click) for the other meteor hieroglyph (by a Chief of the Artisans, Chief of the Scribes...)-(The same scribe did some temple stuff which dates it; the Louvre citation says nothing of the Scribe's century, or Dynasty, only the Temple reliefs date it (I found those 4-8 weeks later.-(AND, the scribe may be an understudy, not HIM, the work is flawless, like how a devoted focussed young CRAZY person would do it, or a MIDDLE-aged crazy person-The stele must have taken at least a MONTH?-3 mo.?)--- The meteor is a replacement for the Incense burner: pot (hieroglyph)-(one of the first group of 10 I did when I didn't know SH*t fro Shin*la), not that I do now. The meteor is at the foot of the BA bird, Ibis, replacing the Incense Pot. (from the HOT-SonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA..).. --Mmcannis (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The re-direct is a good start. I am going to dig further and possibly suggest that the article name be changed if in fact it is better-known to modern scholars by the "Damanhour" name. I don't know that to be the case yet, so until I can confirm that with more evidence, I'll leave things as they are for now. I think we have almost enough info on it to be able to add further material to the Rosetta Stone article that references it and puts it into the right context with the RS; basically: discovered about 40 years after Champollion's breakthrough in deciphering hieroglyphics, and used by Budge and other philologists to reconstruct the form that the missing hieroglyphs from the RS likely took.

Nice work on doing articles on the individual hieroglyphs. If articles exist for all of the major letters, why not for hieroglyphs as well. I've seen a few of them, and they seem good. It's not my particular area of interest, so I can't comment in depth on what I have seen. They are undoubtedly better than having nothing at all.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But still examine the stele by the Meteor (hieroglyph) (Scribe Chief) in Commons. (By the chief of the artisans). He tweaked about 20 % of the hieroglyphs, so they are the same common ones, but he literally put a "twist" on about 20-50 hieroglyphs (of the 650 possible common ones). I'd do an article on his stele, but would have to pick a name, because like I say, it is only referenced by a temple time Period (the Stele must have his name on it, though)... Mmcannis (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what, if anything does this have to do with either the Nubayrah/Damanhour Stele (or the Rosetta Stone for that matter)? Sorry, I am not clear as to how (or if) you are trying to link your hieroglyph articles and the stela articles together. Captmondo (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cyberjack-Wizard.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cyberjack-Wizard.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the rollback feature to revert established editors

You are a rollbacker and so I presume you know that it is used to revert vandalism and not reverting other established editors who properly reverted vandalism. In effect you restored the vandalism in Rosetta stone while calling my action vandalism by using rollback against my revert here. I am convinced that whoever invented the rollback tool did not invent it for such use. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and my apologies! That was definitely not my intention. A mistake on my part. Captmondo (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)