This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Nectanebo II picture
Hi, I have uploaded an image of Nectanebo II's sacrophagus . Any good ? Markh 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hyksos
Have you seen what user 76.XX attempted to do with the Hyksos web page. Its total vandalism and pure nonsense. He uses the same old modus operandi and removes all published and reliable of the origins of the Hyksos with an anon IP! I made a note to Markh here--"Hyksos again." [1] Regards, Fabian Leoboudv 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oi. I had cleaved off the "Who were they stuff" from the rest of the article, and I see that that was reverted without even a comment by the "usual suspect". Have reverted it back, though with little hope it will last more than a few minutes. It's a pity, as the rest of the article is otherwise pretty good... Captmondo 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thomas (Thanatosimi) has tried to set things right on the Hyksos page. Looks like this guy is as brutal as Thomas said. He won't give an inch. He wants us to believe that the Assyrians were really not Semites when they certainly are (and my WSU and Jewish library links make clear!) and also reverted my simple edit that the Hyksos were Indo-Aryans....After he reverted your edit. Might have to get an Admin to do something about this guy. Next thing, you'd think the Armenians ruled the world. Leoboudv 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Weak Oppose for RfA for Captmondo
Hello there:
Before answering your opposition I just wanted to be sure that we are talking about the same thing: could you define what you mean by "wikispace edits"? I am assuming that this means working on procedural tasks (i.e. Feature Article and Good Article nominations, and discussions on same), right?
Perhaps asking this question alone disqualifies me for Adminship, but I'd rather be an informed than blunder into a baseless response.
Not knowing what wiki-space edits are does not mean that you aren't admin material! Wikispace edits (also called projectspace edits) are edits to pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. These mainly are pages that deal with procedural tasks (as you put it), and can be identified as pages written in this formula: "Wikipedia: Article name." Having a high number of wikispace edits usually means that you have been participating in "pre-admin activities," and have had experience with policy. You can view your edit count in detail, including your amount of wikispace edits (labeled as edits to wikipedia, as opposed to the mainspace or talk) here. I wouldn't be opposed to you becoming an admin, but i'd like to see more proof of policy knowledge.
Good luck (no matter my vote) on your RFA! •Malinaccier•T/C 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your rfa
I've added some questions for your consideration.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As you are listed as a member of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, I'd like to recruit your help in reviewing the article Ancient Egypt. The article is listed as top priority in the Wikiproject and as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but appears to have failed to meet Good Article criteria at its last nomination. The article is in need of some serious attention.
In the past week, I asked for (and got) the article to be semi-protected to protect against the constant barrage of vandalism. This protection lasts for two weeks. I also did a little clean-up, added a map and so on. I would like to see everyone in Wikiproject:AncientEgypt have the chance to add their input to Ancient Egypt, and get the article up to featured status as soon as possible. I believe the article is at least 80% of the way there, and some focused attention will bring it the rest of the way.
The most pressing concerns seem to be the culture/architecture section, and the achievements/unsolved problems sections. Also, the entire article, especially the achievements section, the sources, and external links need to be seriously checked for accuracy. These sections also require a little organization too.
Ancient Egypt ought to be the top priority of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, and I look forward to working with everyone to get this article cleaned up and hopefully promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 03:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hatshepsut
Though I agree that the present image would be better, I have to wonder if we should stay away from that particular photo. Apparently there was a bit of a fight over whether that was copywrited, since it's a cropped image of a textbook cover or somthing like that. It seems as if Hatshepsut would have made FA a while ago, had there been another image avalable. Thanatosimii 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA was unsuccessful
I have closed your RFA, I'm afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana(talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be put off or feel dejected by this. Your contributions are very valuable, and hopefully a future RfA will get you the buttons. Meantime if I can do anything for you just ask, and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Captmondo, I just learned about your RfA. Had I known about it, I would have offered my support (despite the fact the last time I enthusiastically supported someone it didn't go so well). I'm somewhat annoyed by this increasing editcounting fetish, which seems to be the only reason you didnn't receive the bit: it's gone beyond a small test to show familiarity with Wikipedia culture to being an end in itself. If there's anything I can do to help you in your next attempt, please let me know. -- llywrch 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the trick is to find a couple of Admins (or other Wikipedians who have been around for a while) who are willing to "mentor" you. Things have changed since I received the Admin bit (I had a total of three people vote on my nomination way back when), so that one not only needs a bit of advice, but also needs to build up support -- convince enough people that you do have the knowledge & judgement -- so that when your name comes up, everyone already knows you. -- llywrch 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If by "politicking" you mean the word in the more generalized sense of socializing & making friends, I agree that this never hurts; if you mean "politicking" in the sense of joining up with the proper cliques or factions, God help us if Wikipedia has reached that point! I think the problem with Wikipedia is that it's become a city, where there can be any number of intelligent & good contributors -- like you -- who very few people know about. I'm constantly amazed at the number of Admins I've never even heard of, let alone know.
As for your "quality vs. quantity" observation -- I agree. I personally know someone who a year ago was looking into writing the kind of tool you described, but since he's not a committed Wikipedian, he's been busy with other things & I believe let the project drop. If you have the time to work on this project, please do so; I think the current method of analysis was little more than a simple improvement over the original -- & primitive -- "total number of edits" that a query on the Wikipedia database provided. The major challenge now would be getting access to the raw data, because the MySQL database is so huge. -- llywrch 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I had initially voted oppose, but upon a closer look I realized that you are a great editor and adminship should not be a great deal. I'd recommend you keep doing your thing and hopefully wikipedia culture will shift from quantity to quality. Brusegadi 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on this. As of right now I think ancient Egypt could pass Good Article status without much problem, and needs just a little touch up. In fact, I think the content is already better than good status, so why not go for the gold and get it to Featured, since it is so close?
I am planning on working on the culture section a little more to expand it. The history section probably needs a little work on the prose, and the achievements/open problems section needs to be fact-checked and cleaned up. After everyone has a chance to look at it, I figure we could submit for full peer-review, work on those comments, and then nominate for FA. Jeff Dahl 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the well thought out comments on the discussion page. I am going to work on the culture section, trying to get it fleshed out. If you are interested in working on a section, would you consider working on the history section? If that doesn't strike your fancy, how about working on the fringe theories, the more popular of which may deserve a (very) brief overview? Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
