Contents

User talk:Khruner

Dear Khruner, could you help Nyuserre Ini's current bid for reaching featured article status by simply commenting your opinion on the matter here? I have trouble garnering enough comments for the article, so far only A. Parrot has commented, which is a manifestation of the lack of interest that many FAC reviewers have in random Old Kingdom pharaohs (in comparison an article on any bird gets many more comments in no time!). If you accept to comment, you can either directly oppose or support the article by writing OpposeorSupport (depending on your opinion) followed by a brief explanation of why, or if you want to see improvements before reaching a decision, you can write them after Comments by Khruner and I will address all of them as best as I can. Your help is very much appreciated: this is the only stage in the article review process which is entirely up to people wanting to give their opinions and where I can't do anything myself. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor No prob. Had to admire your perseverance in enhancing these articles. I have promoted a single article to GA status and decided not to do it again because it left me exhausted, so can't imagine FA... Will you have a bit more spare time in the near future? Khruner (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! I hope to have more time in the near future, but it is unlikely to get much better before a couple of years. That being said, these days I manage to get a few edits, now directed mostly on Neferefre. Since he is not a long reigning pharaoh with lots to talk about, he should take much less time than Nyuserre and Djedkare did. I am also in the midst of a battle with the wikimedia foundation UK and the Ashmolean museum to get a photo of the seal of Sekheperenre, in storage. After long contacts with the curator and the admin responsible for copyright and photographies in the museum, we are looking at 85 pounds fee for a low resolution photo without copyrights. The wikimedia foundation hasn't responded since the fee was announced. I can't believe we live in a world where a museum, a museum, whose whole purpose is to accumulate and disseminate knowledge, can't even agree to release a photo of the only item in the world attesting to a pharaoh's existence, without us having to pay a crazy amount for something that anyone with a smartphone can do in 1 second. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was aware of that, I lurked the whole conversation. I do not feel to fully blame the museum for the fee if it is in the same situation as those of my country, though. Anyway, is the scarab unpublished? If so, and no wikipedian living in Oxford could take that pic, the best way is to get a copyrighted pic from the museum and make a drawing out of it. A scarab is pretty easy to draw and could be a stimulus for more drawing, since there are still many things to draw. Khruner (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any publication of the scarab and given that Ryholt himself gives no references, I guess it is indeed unpublished. I have found plenty of people willing to go to the museum and take a picture, but after initially saying that the scarab was on display, the museum staff realised that it wasn't and is in storage (roughly two-third of the discussion was by email rather than on wikipedia so Richard's talk page does not reflect the current situation). It is therefore inaccessible to all but a few staff members. The lady responsible for photographies proposed to scan an old photograph (low res) of the scarab which is in the museum archives, for a 20 pounds fee, and to release it under fair-use copyrights, which did not please WMUK. Thus, even if we want to make a drawing, there is still 20 pounds to be paid and convincing WMUK to pay for a scan of an old photo so that a drawing can be made is difficult, I guess they don't think this should cost 20 pounds (neither do I). Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. According to von Beckerath, the scarab is catalogued in Olga Tufnell's Study on Scarab Seals and their Contribution to the history in the early second Millennium B.C., with the number 3465. There may be a fleeble chance that the scarab is also illustrated here. Will search in my university's library tomorrow. Khruner (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this would be beyond incredible, especially given the dead-end that we have reached with the museum and the wikimedia foundation. My guess is the old photography that the admin lady was talking about may have been taken for/used by academics and thus, could indeed have found its way into some memoir/book/these. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor Here we are. Just a plain, 2-minutes drawing, but consider that the original was 2cm large and very plain too. As you can see, a very classic "Hyksos design", not that I expected anything better. Khruner (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IS THIS REAL LIFE??? I don't know how you do it, but you are an incredible wikipedian. I shall leave you the honor of putting up the picture on Sekheperenre's article and on the list of pharaohs. I want you to know that this and your vase of Nebsenre must enter the record as properly awesome works. How can I thank you? Iry-Hor (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a decent hunter who enjoys bibliographical researchs. There is a way indeed; if you are planning to go to Paris in the future, could you go to Le Louvre and take a pic of Merkawre Sobekhotep's statue? because I'm struggling to make a decent drawing out of it. (I know this does not make sense at all: only because you're French doesn't mean that you have to go often to Paris, but whatever..!) Khruner (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are decently good at it to say the least. Regarding the Louvre, I don't have any plans to go to Paris in the foreseeable future as I live in the UK for the moment and my family is elsewhere in France. However I went to the Louvre in 2013 and took many photos. I will look at what I have and see if, by chance, I took a photo of his statue. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the statue looks like? Is it complete, is it missing its head or something? This would help me identify it in the many photos. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I found this in a 1875 book by Mariette in case we don't find anything better. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is a classic sitting statue, but everything above the navel is lost. For what I can tell from pictures, the statue is made from beautiful alkali feldspar granite, and the inscriptions that you have discovered so quickly are carved on the sides of the throne. Khruner (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commander of the order of Ancient Egypt

Few words and rewards can match your impressive achievements in illustrating Wikipedia, providing pictures for even the most obscur of pharaohs, lightening up their articles with flashes of a lives long past. Humbled, by your masterpieces of perseverance for Nebsenre, Sekheperenre, Mentuhotep IV and countless others, I award you today the rank of Commander of the order of Ancient Egypt. May your work continue to shine on Wikipedia for the greater good ! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Khruner (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was recommended to you for help from Iry-Hor and would like to kindly request that you could assess the quality scale classes of two articles that I destubbed, if it's no bother! The articles are as follows:
Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt
Twenty-eighth Dynasty of Egypt
Thanks, HeathIsling 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello HeathIsling, well done with the articles. About the quality assessment, I have unfortunately no idea about how to perform it, and even after making significant changes in an article, I have never rconsidered changing the previous assessment in talk page. From Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment it seems that only a wikiproject member should perform this; despite Iry-Hor's thought and despite my deep interest in ancient Egypt, I have never been a member of the WikiProject Ancient Egypt. I could suggest to look for some active members Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, but check for their recent contributions in order to make sure they are truly active! Khruner (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your fantastic additions and the removal of my mistake on Sarenput II. I love the additional content you put on there. I was going to put "Hello!" in hieroglyphics, but um, Google Translate wasn't having it. I was also thinking as more information emerges we might be able to WP:SPLIT and give Shemai his own home, at least a stub. Would love your thoughts. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drewmutt, thanks for your kindness. Don't blame yourself for the mistake, the article on Egyptian Streets at first wrongly states that the newly discovered tomb is that of Sarenput II, only to correct itself later. Unfortunately, at the actual state only Shemai's family relationships and burial place are known, while other important informations such as his job or titles are still missing. He may well deserve his own article is more about him will be discovered, as I hope! By reading more carefully the other source you provided, I've just realized that Sarenput II was related to the later Heqaib III via his daughter, an interesting relationship that could lead to the creation of a genealogical tree of those nomarchs at Elephantine. Khruner (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami - any IP from Miami posting weird stuff like this will be him. Let me know and I'll block him. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey😜🐼🐸😮 Missy molly (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Khruner (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to JSTOR at the Wikipedia Library. JSTOR currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about such an opportunity! I appreciate a lot Khruner (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for your assistance with the recent Pi-Ramesses related edits. I wasn't very happy with them but not sure what to do.

I've got JSTOR access as a Yale alumnus if you ever want anything from it. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug, logic suggested to me that the opinion of a 10-century non-archaeologist rabbi cannot be considered an element of debate for such a theme. Editor may not be satisfied, though. Many thanks for the offer! Working time prevents me from going to my former university's library where I used to have full-access to JSTOR. Khruner (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your email address hasn't changed, I've sent you a copy. If it has, email me. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Khruner (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Yaserotmani (and his sockpuppet) were blocked by Fut.Perf. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well done. One of many kinds of editors whose banishment gives me immediate relief. Khruner (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted[1] turns out to be a sockpuppet edit, see User talk:Brython99 - bottom of the page. The key thing, in relation to the new sock and the IP's edits, is stated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EddieDrood/Archive, "Similar behavior of falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references, one such neologism". May need some cleanup. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will keep an eye open for such a behaviour. Khruner (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 May 2017 you removed any reference to me on the subject of the reversal of Shabaka and Shabataka. I remind you that back in 2005 I was the first to outlay 10 reasons for reversing these reigns. This was years before Michael Bányai published his ground breaking paper. See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.egyptologyforum.org_bbs_Sabataka-26Sabaka.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=opcsBFeNOGibikhitrWp_vvUpAwW-hA4UeIW8Ekh45I&m=2YtAMgzp4-G8DxpnCsEsFCG1QZLgMqks5yDsV8F-xgU&s=L7EaW0pe1T-Gq-IK8mSYMK-2S6VoIfYn5iNrp-lNdek&e= Please reinstate the footnote reference to me.

Joe Baker (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, Joe Baker, on 2 June I rewrote a chunk of Shebitku's article basing on the sources stored in my pc. It seems, however, that another person has come to the same conclusion in the same year. Khruner (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. When Michael Bányai wrote his first paper he did mention my contribution but this was removed by the editors before publication. Michael apologised and made sure I was mentioned in his published second paper. Joe Baker (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some of the edits I've made should not have been removed. The edit I did on Giovanni Battista Belzoni was correct, as he did indeed loot antiquities from the nation they resided. I then linked that adjective to Wikipedia's page that describes archaeological looting. I did error with Ozymandias, since I should have utilised archaeological looting there as well rather than thief, so thank you for catching that. Just because at the time the practice of looting other cultures antiquities was considered acceptable as archaeology, we should call it what it actually is in our somewhat more enlightened age.

Not sure if you are who I need to speak to about another edit, but I [edited Conrad Black's page with citations from his own writing in a major newspaper] saying anti-Semitic and anti-Native Canadian remarks, but this entire edit was removed. Why is provable, cited information being removed by powerful figures when it reflects poorly on them? Krieguerre —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krieguerre Hello, as you said, these were the very early days of Egyptology, many other coeval archaeologists resorted to methods that were questionable at best: Bernardino Drovetti, Henry Salt, Champollion, or Richard William Howard Vyse who made its way into a pyramid by using explosive. The main problem is that you need a reliable source confirming such direct claim; otherwise, it looks like an original research or simply your personal point of view. Look at Giuseppe Ferlini: speaking frankly, he indeed can be considered a thief and a vandal, but this is backed by reliable sources. Furthermore, usually the article lead isn't the proper place to put informations which could be considered rather "marginal" when compared to the reason why the individual is mostly known. Again, for Ferlini is different, as he is famous only because of his wrongdoings. About the Conrad Black issue, I really don't know, I only saw that your addition caused an edit war which ultimately resulted in its removal. Khruner (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khruner, thank you for your quick response. I agree, normally I would have included a citation about his removal of antiquities from Egypt, and also would not have normally included it in the article lead, however that he conducted that removal was already included immediately after my edit. Either my edit should stay or that entire section needs to be re-written. Also, since Wikipedia exists under modern cultural norms, those norms should be applied when describing the past, including those archaeologists/adventurers you cited above. I do agree with your points in general but would suggest a serious amount of editing be done to recognise the cultural theft perpetrated by many archaeologists. I am much more concerned about the Conrad Black edit, as that was properly cited and researched, while linked to appropriate Wikipedia pages to explain the slur that was used.--Krieguerre (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]