User talk:Leoboudv/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OTRS[edit]

It looks like you need to get the copyright holder (S. Hayter, presumably) to send the permissions email to OTRS first of all, then the image can be uploaded and tagged with {{OTRS-pending}}, while it's in the OTRS process, then the image info can be updated once OTRS has logged it. Not a good idea to upload something before the copyright holder has agreed to it, no assurance that there will ever be agreement. The copyright holder does need to specify which images are to be given a free license, and we will upload only those - could be just the one from a page, or all of them - just needs to be identifiable ("image of Pharoah Foo at http://...", or a file name, or whatever). Once we have permission, you get the image from the page (dragging image to desktop usually works) and then upload in the usual way (doesn't matter who actually does the transfer, as long as the paperwork is correct). Main difference between GFDL and CC is that GFDL has more complicated documentation requirements designed to prevent abuses that almost never happen in practice, while CC is more relaxed about it. In any case, point people at the WP articles on the licenses if they want details. From the looks of it, Simon is wanting to get more traffic *to* his website, and images on commons might take away from that, so he may not be too interested - but it never hurts to ask. Stan Shebs (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psamtik[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

Thank you for your message and request. This is a small statue of an 'ordinary' dignitary called 'Psamtik' as the namesakes pharaohs. May be from 26th dynasty or more probably 27th, because of the style of the face.

You can check on official Louvre site museum here.

In the Louvre notice, there is nothing else to help us to know who was this Psamtik but what is certain is that he's not a king. No cartouches on the body or on the statue's base, no uraeus on his head... If he had been a pharaoh these sacred signs would have been sculpted for sure.

By the way, i'm grateful about the images of Tanis you uploaded. They have missed us indeed ! Thank you for your helpful work and feel free to use mine !

Greetings from Paris ;-) Neithsabes (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again !
What a pity with photo in Egypt... I don't understand the SCA's position about it. The first time i went in Alexandria and visited the Bibliotheca Alexandrina's museum, it was allowed to take photo if you pay a right for. I found this solution excellent and a good way for the museum finances. Why they don't generalize this possibility to all egyptians museums ?? Imagine for Cairo Museum they could have a million dollars with and more !! Mystery of image rights i suppose...
About Psametik 1st, you're right... indeed it's very curious we don't have more statues of this Pharaoh... May be is there a lack of studies about this subject, or may be is it related to history? Psametik was protected by the assyrian king against kushites kings and may be he didn't ruled such a long period or became an real pharaoh later in times...?? We have to check it i suppose.
At Louvre you have this small head who, may be, could be from him. But nothing could be sure about. Almost the contrary of the first statue of the homnymous dignitary. This small head have a royal crown, represent for sure a pharaoh (or a god??) but no name on it. The notice at the Louvre say only Tête d'un roi. (Psammétique Ier ?) - 26e dynastie.
May be there is one in Turin Museum. I read it in a book of Maspero but i've never found elsewhere a photo of this statue who seems to be a colossus (Histoire générale de l'art - Egypte, fig. 467 p. 249 ; ed. Hachette 1911).
I agree with you about Cruxifiction's work. At first i believed it was his own work and now i'm not so sure about it... On Psametik III i have an original pic of the relief here if you need it ; i took it during my last trip in Egypt.
Always a pleasure to share things about Egypt :o) Regards Neithsabes (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Leoboudv
Thanks a lot for the article on the ban of photo in the egyptians museums. It's more clear for me now and i understand perfectly ; the same problem can be seen on the most famous archeological sites. Sometimes i saw tourists climbing on statues, sphinx or walls only for a shot... and i was very shocked about it.
In Cairo Museum it's true it's a crowded place and even without photo certain parts of the museum are not easy to visit.
I've never read this article and will be able now to explain it to other people who ask themselves same question.
Thank you again. Neithsabes (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psammetichus I or Psamtik I - news pics[edit]

Good evening and good news

I've found in my pictures of my last trip in Egypt reliefs representing Psammetichus I, during a visit of the tomb of Pabasa - very nice reliefs and very beautiful tomb indeed. I just upload hem today.

It's not a statue of course but that's all i have about Psammetichus I for the moment.

You can see it here. Enjoy ;-) Neithsabes (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psammetichus II[edit]

Good evening from paris again !

About this pic with cartouches of Psammetichus II it's more difficult for several reasons. At first the Louvre expose it without notice and you can't find no more information in official site of the museum, may be the reason why some people believe it's a statue of this king, because of the cartouches of course but.... nothing can say that's a portrait of the king because if it was the case then you would find for sure other officials signs (crown, uraeus etc.) or epithets as king of Lower and Upper Egypt.

On this statue you find only over the cartouches on the shoulders two signs nefer netjer that you can translate as the good god.

The cartouches themselves look strange no ? In fact they were first erased and then reinscribed with the name Psammetichus II. At his time this king decide to erase name of ancient pharaohs like kushites ones and even Nechao II his father himself... why he has decided it? it is not clear.

What is sure, that this statue is egyptian and not kushite. Probably the man was a priest and presents a statue or a naos with a representation of the king, but it broke now and there is no more inscription on it.

Then we could say that it was a statue of an official from the time of Nechao II may be a vizier or a priest of the king. Later when Psammetichus II erased all the cartouche of his father, he replace by his own name... (it is almost freudian as history isn't it?)

I have to say that i was confused also about this sculpture and still try to find something about it. If i'll find a new source who tell us that it'is a real portrait of Psammetichus III be sure then i will correct it !

Regards Neithsabes (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


About Egyptian Museum[edit]

Hello Leoboudv,

We have to be patient about ; next time i will go to Egypt i'll try to pay a right for photo (not this year but may be next one at autumn). If nobody do it before... even it's the case it's not a problem i suppose ;o) Second, there will be a new egyptian museum in a few years (may be less !!), a big one, near Giza's pyramids. This new building will be great and for sure more spacious and modern. It will be at least and certainly the biggest and best egyptian museum in the world.

Look here and here ;-) Opening may be in 2009. Greetings from Paris :-) Neithsabes (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thutmosis Ist pic[edit]

I'm not a specialist about license but it's a good news for our work on Commons i think.

About this pic i disagree with what is described. It's not a 2D paint but a real relief ; in fact a bas-relief. You can see it at Deir el-Bahari Hatshepsut's mortuary temple. And it's not Thutmosis Ist but Thutmosis III ; you can check on this other pic here. Thutmosis Ist was the father of Hatshepsut.

All the walls of this temple are decorated with bas-reliefs. Ok they are painted too but at first they are reliefs. You can check this perfectly on the second pic.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That picture of Thutmose 'III' not 'I' is definitely 2D art. An Admin told me he thought it was most likely 2D here I tried to get it deleted as copy vio and as a historically inaccurate tagged picture here and I received the same objection--that it is 2D art. PS: If you know that the image is that of Thutmose III not I, please feel free to make a comment on the AfD. Personally, I always thought Hatshepsut honoured her father Thutmose I in her reign since he was the basis for her legitimacy as king of Egypt. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leboudv
Ok for 2D art ; it's not a problem fo me ;-)
I agree with you about the fact that Hatshepsut honoured her father Thutmose I in her reign since he was the basis for her legitimacy as king of Egypt. You're perfectly right.
But... about the latter pic, if it's Thutmose Ist or III, please take a look and compare the cartouches :
This pic and the first one are same work. You can see it in the position of the pharaoh and the hieroglyphs or on the joints stones on the right leg for exemple. On the first you can see cartouches and they are those of Thutmose III Menkheperra (left one). The cartouche is intact and not reinscribed.
On this pic you can see the left cartouche of Thutmose Ist : Aakheperra.
That's the reason why i say it's Thutmose III on the first pic.
Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amenemope's mask[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

Congratulation for this new photo of Amenemope's funerary mask. Much better than the last (now cancelled). I used it for the french section of Wikipedia, but forgot to precise that's your work. Sorry about, i'll do my best next time, i promise ;o)

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done with your last upload Image:Mask of Amenemope by John Campana.jpg. Very nice indeed ! Neithsabes (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seti II[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

Very nice statue ; i knew it's exposed at Turin but we missed it indeed. Originally it's come from Karnak temple and was placed in front of the Seti II's chapel in the first court of the great temple of Amun. There were two colossal statues in the same position and almost intacts.

The first, the most intact one, was sent to Italy and the second (less intact, the crown is broken) to France where you can see it actually at the Louvre Image:Louvre 122006 038.jpg.

About Gulbenkian's golden mask, i've never seen it before you upload it. I think it's a 26th dynasty work (the style) but where from? I didn't find at yet informations about. May be from Saqqarah where several intacts tombs of this period were found last century... I still look for something about... will take times i think.

About Ibi's sarcophagus i'm not sure also. Probably from Thebes but the style and the djed pillar make me think as a memphite work. I continue to search in my books and when i find it then i will add more information.

Very nice pics in any case ! Thanks again and again ;o)

Greetings!

Neithsabes (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Meresankh II / III[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

You're right, Meresankh III was the wife of Khafra and Meresankh II then could be not his daughter.

In fact she was one of the daughters of Kheops/Khufu, then rather a sister or half-sister of Khafra.

One mistake more in description... ;o) Neithsabes (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leboudv,
Catmondo give an answer to your question on my talk-page and upload a very interesting group statue of Hetepheres II and Meresankh III.
Just want to give you more info ; there is a map of her tomb at giza on commons : Image:MeresankhIII G7530.jpg
Now tehre is a category (created by Catmondo also) for this queen too with all the files we can have about her at yet.
Cheers, Neithsabes (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hobby as for you. I try to study it by myself and i hope to have time one day for studying it really ! may be it's just a dream but a good one ;o) Neithsabes (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibi sarcophagus[edit]

Hi Leboudv

I check in my books informations about this sarcophagus of Ibi and you're right, it's Ibi the chancelor of Nitocris who has a tomb in Thebes (Theban Tomb 36). Nothing to change.

Cheers Neithsabes (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TT8[edit]

Hi again

This is the inner sarcophagus of Kha. Meryt's sarcophagus wear a different wig with blue inlays and her face is more fine and delicate.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post meroitic crown of Ballana[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

This crown was discovered at the beginning of the 20th century at Ballana in several impressive tombs at Ballana and Qustul. These tombs belonged to nubian kings of the post-meroitic period, after the fall of the kingdom of Meroe (5th century), when three small kingdoms rose just before the christianization of the region (6th-7th century).

There is no category for the moment for these kingdoms of Sudan which inherited meroitic customs with byzantinnes influences. We have to create it I suppose. I look where this crown is exposed ; another crown of this period is in the Museum of Cairo and can be that this one also but I am not sure. When I shall find, I shall put the right category, either if you find, please do not hesitate ;o)

Cheers Neithsabes (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Turin photos[edit]

Dear Leoboudv, I'm looking for among my photos some images of Egyptian Museum of Turin, but the quality is very low. Another problem is that in Italy is forbidden publish hi-quality photo taken in state museum without permission, so I add only a photo. I hope to add quickly some images. --Luigi Chiesa (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand italian, you can read this. I can upload a hi-resolution photo on Commons, but I cannot use it on italian wikipedia. --Luigi Chiesa (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy II / Philae[edit]

Hi again,

Well done for the relief of Philae, it's Ptolemy II, you're right; I made a mistake in reading the cartouche... sorry about.

About Louvre, there is a lot of things to do here you know, it's a huge museum and i don't know all th rooms perfectly - except may be the egyptian section ;o)

Cheers Neithsabes (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming again[edit]

I told you this back in July, it's not possible to rename images, not for anybody, not even admins. You'd have to upload a new image, and edit all the references in all the wikis. Only then will anybody consider deletion of a validly-licensed image. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without the source/license, the old image was going to have someone want to delete it sooner or later anyway - no easy way around that. If you set up meta:Help:Unified login, then you can edit any wiki as yourself. But now you can see why I suggested just leaving the image alone, and adding a detailed explanation on the description page, so people don't keep misusing it. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to order a new flickrreview & rename images[edit]

The license was changed from cc by 2.0 to cc by sa 2.0 here: [1]

  • And for no known flickr restriction: {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}

Kalabsha stela[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

This stela is from Psammetichus II and reports the nubian military campaign of his reign. This king has sent his troops against the kingdom of Kush who wanted a this time coming back in Egypt and take the throne. The kings of Kush came from the descendants of the kings of the 25th dynasty, and the famous king who fight against the egyptian and greek army of Psammetichus was Aspelta.

Psammetichus won the war and erected stelae in Egypt and Nubia at Tanis, Thebes, Aswan/Kalabsha ; this latter stela is the most intact and gives a lot of details of the military campaign, especially that the king himself had participated to the last and final battle near Napata. It's at this occasion that all the nubian royal statues were broken, as the famous statue of Aspelta in Boston Museum. (It would be great if you can upload this photo of the stela)

About Kalabsha, you're right there was here an ancient temple or merely a chapel. After the campaign of Psammetichus the region fall again under the rule of the nubian Kings. Later Ergamene rebuilt the temple in the ptolemaic era. It's the temple we can see today. The temple will be finally achieved under roman times. It was a temple dedicated to Mandulis a nubian god.

There was a big gate of Augustus but this monument was dismantled after the war between romans and nubians. In the last 20th century, when the temple has been rebuilt because of the water of the Nasser lake, archaeologists find the blocks of this gate and reconstructed it. This monument was gave as a gift to Germany and is visible actually at Berlin.

Hope my english is clear and correct.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hémi-spéos = speos half built half dug[edit]

Hi Leboudv

Hémi-spéos means it's a sanctuary dug in rock (a speos) with a forecourt built with stones. It's a temple or a chapel half built, half dug.

Abu Simbel is a speos because is entirely dug in rock. Gerf-Hussein, Wadi es-Sebua and others are hemi-speos, because their forecourt are built with stones and have osiride-statues like in the famous temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari for exemple.

I try to translate the article from french to english but it's not easy indeed... Neithsabes (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Psammetichus II stela[edit]

Hello Leoboudv

Just want to thank you to have uploaded the photo of Psammetichus stela. Just a beautiful piece and so well preserved. I use it for th french article of Psammetichus II.

Thanks again to you and to John Campana ;o) Neithsabes (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derr/Amada[edit]

Good evening Leoboudv,

About the first photo it's a relief from Amada you're right. The cartouche is one of Thutmosis III. The second photo is from Derr and the king is Ramses II (you can check it with cartouches). Amada and Derr are two temples from different places, different old cities in the egyptian part of Nubia. When waters of the lake Nasser grew, the two temples were dismantled and rebuilt in the same place on the new bank of the new formed lake.

That's the reason why people visiting the two temples in the same trip and confusing them, most of the time because they don't know who's who or what is what, and indeed sometimes it's not always easy to know it.

Greetings from Paris. Neithsabes (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Beit el-Wali[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

Those 2 images are from Beit el-Wali, temple of Ramses II. This temple is rebuilt at New Kalabsha near the temple from Augustus times. This latter temple, has no coloured reliefs and is not very decorated. Instead Beit el-Wali is a really pearl of beginnings times of Ramses II. More than 1000 years separate those two temples.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last photos[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

The first photo represents a diadem in gold of one of Thuthmosis III's wifes, found in a tomb at Thebes called the « tomb of the three syrian princesses ». This tomb has been found in 1916 and gaves a lot of pieces of exquisite jewelleries of this period, half egyptian half from the Middle East.

The second one is indeed a relief of Amenemhat I found in his funerary temple at Lisht.

Rergards. Neithsabes (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leboudv,

I apologize because of this mistake ; it's right it's not a diadem of one of Thutmosis III foreigners wifes. But it's neither the diadem of Sitamun. I checked in one of my books on jewelries of ancient Egypt and found this on this diadem : "Circlet of a queen or a princess, electrum. H. (of stag's head) 8.5 cm. From Salhiya in the Eastern Delta. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Reg. No. 68.136.1. (...)"

In the description following the author don't give this crown as a jewelry of Sitamun, no precise date. Just it's may be a work of the 18th dynasty. Source : Jewels of the Pharaohs. Egyptian jewelry of the Dynastic Period. By Cyril Aldred. Ed. Thames & Hudson. London 1978.

We don't have any jewelry or things of the tomb of Sitamun except a throne found in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya and now exposed in the Cairo Museum.

About the second photo it's indeed a diadem of the tomb of the three princesses of Thutmosis III. I confused them...

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you uploaded this photo with my assertion but i was wrong... Even if C. Aldred said it's a 18th dynasty's work and compares it with other works of this period as the treasure of the three princesses (very close with the gazelles heads), the diadem was not found at Thebes but in the Delta...
I reproduce here the text of Aldred :
"This unique crown, consisting of a band of electrum 1.5 cm wide perforated to take tie-strings at the rear and mounted with rosettes and animals heads, appears to have been made in Egypt largely under Asiatic inspiration, if it is not an Asiatic import. In the XVIIIth Dynasty it became the fashion to decorate the diadems of princesses and lesse queens with the figure of a gazelle's head in place of the uraeus or vulture of principal queens. This crown with its four gazelle heads may have been part of the trousseau of a foreign princess sent as a bride for one of the Pharaohs according to the diplomacy of the age. (...) It is reputed to have been found with other goldwork of the Middle Kingdom on a remote Delta site not far from the Hyksos stronghold of Avaris" (C. Aldred. Jewels of the Pharaohs. Ed. Thames & Hudson. London 1978)
Sorry again... Mistake is human... as we say here. Neithsabes (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata[edit]

The metadata is part of the actual .jpg file; in theory the download and upload should preserve those bits, since both steps are supposed to just copy the file's contents without touching it. When I use CommonsHelper, I let it do the transfer itself, rather than saving the file locally; maybe try that? Stan Shebs (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't know about TUSC myself until now. Stan Shebs (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token c67e90a69721378dd4142b85020745ce[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!



Flickr images[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

About these two images : The first is interesting because we have few files from this period. 11th dynasty is the start of the Middle Kingdom, a new golden age of Egypt.

The second is very important because it's a stela of the great temple of Aten at Akhetaten. This kind of stelae are unique because they show a very singular form of the god's name with cartouches and the only god who had a cartouche was Osiris, until this period, and of course afterwards.

Osiris had a cartouche because he was the first god who reigned as a king on earth ; it is not accidentally if Akhenaten decided to inscribe the name of his god in two big cartouches. A new reign of a new god on earth, replacing the ancient reign of the ancient gods. Notice that the name of Aten and of Akhenaten are close... Exactly, the second interest of this stela resides in the protocol of Akhenaten himself. You can see on the left cartouche of the king that he has been erased and reinscribed (the level of the stone is not the same) ; that's a proof of the second change of the name of Akhenaten.

I think that the second one is the most important if you want to choose between both.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Painting Cropping[edit]

Hallo, painting cropping is easy with the freeware Irfanview and the free plugin Perspective Transformations.

For perspective crrection open the pic with Irfan, choose the Plugin, switch the drop done from line to rectangle press set and mark the corner of the painting. Then press apply and return to Irfan for cropping. --Marku1988 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last photos[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

About the statue's head, i don't know any statue of Ay from the period preceding his reign ; there are reliefs in his Amarna's tomb when he was a simple ministre of Akhenaten and after of Tutankhamun. There is a painting of Ay in the tomb of Tutankhamun and others in his own tomb (badly damaged) but i've never seen a statue of him. There is at Berlin a plaster portrait supposed to be him but nothing sure.

The statue of the king from amarna period in the Louvre is probably one of Akhenaten, you're right, but no inscriptions on it could certify it.

About the chapel it's indeed an alabaster chapel of Amenhotep I. I've seen it at the Open Air Museum of Karnak when i went there several years ago. If you look with attention this photo you could see his cartouche on the left side of the door.

About the queen i don't know exactly who she is ; i will look for information on it the next days. On the other hand, this photo you've uploaded is not a statue of Ahmose Nefertari but from Ankhnesneferibre, Divine Adoratrice of Amun and daughter of Psammetichus II from the 26th dynasty of Egypt. She was never a queen but a high priestess of Amun at this time.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khaemweset[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

I have a photo of this funerary mask here with several other jewels found by Mariette in the Serapeum at Saqqara, on the mummy of this Ramses's son and high priest of Ptah.

Some scholars dispute this attribution because the mask seems too poor for a such important prince... and because Mariette didn't give at the time of the discovery a detailed description of it. But the jewels and ushebti found on and around the mummy wears the name of this prince and no other one... Therefore it could be not an other person.

However the mask is in gold, enough expensive for anybody for this time, and the jewelries are for sure these of a royal person.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmes Nefertari[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

It's a statue of Ahmes Nefertari. I don't have any photo of it but I will take one of it next time I will go to the Louvre, I promise. In fact this statue is from the 19th dynasty and represents the queen as she became a goddess especially revered at Deir El-Medineh, the craftsmen's village where lived people who worked in the New Kingdom's royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings.

Two royalty persons became gods after their life : Amenhotep I, certainly because he created for the first time the village and corporation of craftmen of the royal tomb and Ahmes Nefertari because she was the mother of the king, and because she was considered as an ancestor of the royal family.

Several statues of this two deified humans were found exclusively at Thebes. Sometimes in some tombs they are also represented like on these paintings found in one of those tombs of Deir el-Medineh :

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stela of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

This stela is very interesting because it's a rare stela of Hatshepsut (the first king on the left) and Thutmosis III (the second one) who ruled both as a coregency.

You know this story, Thutmosis III was too young for ruling the country and then Hatshepsut, his mother-in-law, has ruled at first as a queen-mother and then as a pharaoh. It's the only time that two kings have ruled on Egypt with their own cartouches, their own crowns, their own ruling years...

Few monuments of this period are still intact except some stelae and reliefs or the Red-chapel of Hatshepsut at Karnak, found dismantled in a pylon of Amenhotep III and rebuilt now in the Karnak museum.

See for example this photo:


You can see the two same cartouches (this time Hatshepsut is on the right and Thutmosis III on the left). It's a relief of the Red chapel from the same period.

Greetings from Paris. Neithsabes (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intef[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

You're right it's not easy to know who's who in Intef family especially with these sarcophagi which have most of the time only the cartouche of « Intef » and not the other one with the other distinct name...

About these two sarcophagi actually at the Louvre you can check it : here about Intef Sekhemra Heruhermaât and here about Intef Sekhemra Wepmaât. Note about this latter, that the notice museum attibute it to this Intef but is not certain (you can see the "?").

Note also that there is an other Intef's sarcophagus at the British Museum ; see this photo ; it's look very close from the gilded sarcophagus of the Louvre. We don't know which Intef it's belonged.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amenemope's mask[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

I find the Commons's image of Amenemope better than this one. I used it for the french section of Wikipedia. The other is a little bit blurred isn't it? Neithsabes (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done ;o) Have a good night ; here it's the middle day (12:12 pm). Regards Neithsabes (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-headed goddesses[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

This aegis could be one of Sekhmet, or Bastet or merely Uadjit. Well, it's not easy to identify it without an inscription. Bastet is usually represented by a cat but also by a lion. At first, she was a lion goddess, only later she became a cat goddess under the New Kingdom and after.

Like for Hathor, who could be identified with Isis or other goddesses, Sekhmet, or lion-headed goddess, could be identified with other goddesses even as Mut but also as Bastet.

I received your mail but because you don't put an title object i found it in the "junk" box... That's the reason why i haven't seen it at first. I reply to you right now.

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, have you seen this one at the Louvre ?

This aegis is very close from the other you show me, and this one is from the time of Osorkon IV.

Last photo[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

I use the last photo you uploaded on commons for the article about Ahmes Nefertari. Nice one indeed. Hope it's not the "last" about Egypt, your work is really good and you have done a lot since you are an Commons's addict ;o)

I promise you, i will take one other of this statue and of Mesha Stela the next time i will go to the Louvre ;o)

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intef - Antef[edit]

Hi Leoboudv

You may be right on these two sarcophagi. I can only said about what i read about on the Louvre museum base Atlas. See the links i gave you above.

I will look for other sources and hope we can check it soon. By waiting we probably have to use them carefully. We could choose them for the disambiguation page Antef, because these sarcophagi belonged to Antef kings. After all we are not specialists and we have to be more serious you're right.

To be continued...

Greetings from Paris. Neithsabes (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Rama the author of this photo follow the Louvre's description of this sarcophagus as i show you last time here. See the notice about, it's in french but you could recognise the name of the Pharaoh.
On Sekhemre Wepmaat nothing are sure about the second sarcophagus (just on right ont the photo of Rama) ; the Louvre says «  Sekhemre Wepmaat ? » because there is nothing on the sarcophagus to confirm this attribution. What we can say on it, it's a sarcophagus of a king Intef (the cartouche on it is clear about) ; but the second name which could give more precision is lacking.
Next time i go to the Louvre i will took photo of the notices to confirm all these affirmations.
Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year ![edit]

Hi Leoboudv and best wishes for this new year ! Hope you're fine and you had nice feasts. Greetings from Paris. Neithsabes (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNG Coins[edit]

Hi Leoboudv, I also dont have an acess to OTRS, so I can't see what's inside this OTRS ticket. But we have a license template for coins from this website: {{CNG}}. You can upload it and use this license template, images from CNG are sorted to the category Category:CNG coins. --Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, greetings, --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on CNG coins OTRS permission here --Leoboudv (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in France[edit]

Hi! There's no FOP in France, see COM:FOP#France. The Eiffel Tower is in the public domain, as Gustave Eiffel died in 1923. The only copyright problem concerns the lighting at night: the lighting company claims copyright, but I don't know whether it has been tested in court. The Louvre Pyramid is protected and we don't allow pictures of it on Commons except when it's not the subject of the photograph, but only a small part of it (some kind of Commons:De minimis).

FOP only matters for artworks that are *not* in the public domain. Any pictures of Egyptian, Greek, Roman antiquity or any other PD artworks are acceptable on Commons, whether the hosting country accepts FOP or not. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US accept FOP for buildings but not for statues. Speaking for myself, I believe FOP is a "natural" exception to copyright, both for statues and buildings. Most people upload their pictures in good faith; they're stunned when we tell them we had to delete their pictures because there's no FOP in the host country. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trebula Mutuesca inscription[edit]

Hi, Leoboudv. Yesterday I was reading the Trebula Mutuesca inscription file history and I realized that you asked to Dan Difendale to change the license of the file. I want to thank you for that. This file was one of my firsts I up loaded and I had any experience on do that. I saw the file in the article and I forgot to fallow the history of the file in commons. The file and many others Difendale has in flirck are very interesting and useful for wikipedia but I am ashamed to ask him to change the license, so I give it up. I realize too that you translated the Latin inscription to English I am doing the Spanish translation and I see there is some differences, but I think this is normal in translations from Latin and Greek. So, thanks again and au revoir. Ups I forgot the signature--eliasjorge4 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures you up loaded are beautiful and very interesting. Thanks again and I will pay attention to the license. Bye.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tkanks again I will keep the note you send me to use it in the future. I think I send something to Difendale with the link to the Trebula Mutuesca Article but I don´t believe I asked him to change the license. To other flirk owner I asked to change the license in one of his pictures to the article "Historia de Monterrey", but the person answer me he didn´t know to do that I try to explain him, but I think I couldn´t so he didn´t change it. Anyway I stated to looking for images in the web and I found them. This was an odyssey but I could learn something new. Thanks for everything. Bye Bye.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sansepolcro church walls and bells.jpg
Sansepolcro church bells against the sky.jpg

File:Sansepolcro_church_bells_against_the_sky.jpg[edit]

Answers to your comments on my Talk page.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are still on Flickr and under a correct license for Wikipedia. See my talk page.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sent e-mail. ✓ Done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having the DR closed on the subject pictures. I appreciate it.
Presently I see they are both licensed under the Attribution License.

I am not that familiar with the various licenses, so am going to take a stab at some of this. I am sure you are much more familiar with these than I am, so please make corrections on my points. I suspect once a person places a certain license that is acceptable to Wikipedia ( "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License" ) and the picture was uploaded with that license, then later (i.e. a month or two or three) that person decides to place back on it some license tags that are not acceptable (i.e. "all right reserved") that the first instance is irrevocable. That is the "Attribution License" (for example) can not be taken back. If that is correct, then it should also apply to Wikipedia. In these particular instances the pictures were uploaded 8 January 2009, however I was notified of a problem on 19 March 2009, over two months later. Any number of things could have happened to the Flickr picture meanwhile in such a long period. The person could have changed the license, or renamed the picture, or pulled the picture from Flickr. There is basically no way to prove it had the correct license when it was uploaded after such a long period of time lapse. There should be (and perhaps there is, I don't know) a rule that IF the uploader is not notified of a problem within a short time (i.e. 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours) then the license specified by the uploader is automatically valid and assumed as specified. Then later (i.e. a month or two or three) a notice can not go to the uploader and have him prove again of a valid license. There should be a short time limit (i.e. 48 hours) after which Wikipedia can not delete the picture due to an invalid license or suspicion of an invalid license. Can a Flickr person withdraw his license after two months?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed response. I can see you understand this copyright stuff much better than myself. It gets over my head real fast. Both pictures have passed the review. I did pose that question to User talk:MBisanz.
Flickr pictures to me are very interesting and an excellent source of pictures. Already there is over 12,000,000 pictures that have the Attribution License and over 8,000,000 that have the Attribution-ShareAlike License. With the below "form letter" I send to Flickr people having all the other licenses of over 80,000,000 where they have a picture I could use, I get 3/4 to change their license to one that is acceptable - giving me an additional 60,000,000 pictures. I recently wrote a 16 article DYK about Appomattox, most with pictures from Flickr. I wrote an article on the Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels, most pictures from Flickr people that lowered their license so their picture could be used in the article. Also wrote Michigan logging wheels where most pictures in the Gallery are Flickr pictures.
"Form Letter"
I write articles for Wikipedia. Your picture is interesting and would fit into one or more of the articles I am presently writing on.
(Here insert Flickr link of their picture)
There is at least one tag in use that makes your picture not usable on Wikipedia.
Would you consider downgrading your copyright tags to "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License" so I could use it on some Wikipedia articles. First one or last one on this list.
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
Do you have any other similar pictures?
Thanks for your consideration.
(signed) --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I do believe we are on the same wavelength with the "Attribution License" -or- "Attribution-ShareAlike License" ONLY. Notice the wording in the "Form Letter" of First one or last one on this list.
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ (I point this link out so they get EXACTLY the correct licenses to use that are acceptable to Wikipedia)
The Flickr "creativecommons" is the same as ours. The example you gave is like my examples in Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels and Michigan logging wheels.
Typical of the 75% that are willing to lower their license to one of these two acceptable licenses is a Flickr message I received today.
From: GettysGirl
Subject: Re: Wagon Wheel
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I forgot to apologize for the delay in responding to your initial message("Form Letter"). I'm an elementary special education teacher, and conferences are looming. It's a busy time of year! That would be fine. I'd be honored to be included in your article. I'll make that change later this evening (my students are returning now) and you should be good to go. Thanks again for selecting my image as one to include. I'm flattered. Take care, Krystn
That "Form Letter" seems to work quite well for me. It gives me access to over 60,000,000 more pictures. I then send them a message to show the article where their picture was used. If they are concerned if they get the credit for being the photographer I then send them additionally the uploaded picture link from Commons. Many times they find additional similar pictures they have taken and ALSO put on one of the correct license so it can be used on Wikipedia. Sometimes they even go out and take pictures for me or give me information I can use for the picture. An example of this is the gavesite pictures of Henry Fielding. I have uploaded dozens of Flickr pictures and they all work since I make sure it is one of these two acceptable licenses before I upload them. Thanks for all the advice you have given and solving the issues on the two church pictures.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of over 100 Flickr pictures I have obtained using my "Form Letter" and they lowered their tags to one of the acceptable licenses.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Amenemope.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

In reply to your questions...[edit]

In reply to your questions...

The Citizendium is a project like the wikipedia, founded by Larry Sanger, one of the wikipedia's other original founders. I decided to try it out, to compare it to the wikipedia. I created a couple of dozen articles there, including some on topics related to transportation. I used the flinfo tool when I uploaded some images there, to illustrate those articles. Those two images, and several others, were approved by the flinfo tool on November 6, 2008.

I gave the Citizendium a good faith effort, and decided my energies were best spent here. I moved a bunch of images I originally uploaded there, over to here, including the two you asked about. If you look at my upload log there you will see the edit summaries show I pasted in the output of the flinfo tool.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr images needing human review[edit]

Your comment was moved from COM:AN/UP to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Flickr_images_needing_human_review. The User Problems board is for issues with other Commons users, issues needing attention from an administrator (like backlogs) go on COM:AN/A. Cheers! -- Editor at Large • talk 04:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, thanks for pointing out the backlog! That category gets filled quickly, last I checked there were only a few files there. Greetings back from Canada ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Done the 3 listed on my talk page! -- Editor at Large • talk 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina da Povoa[edit]

Marina da Póvoa.

Of course, I no longer hold the email (look at the upload date!), besides it does not guarantee the email is authentic . Although it would be easy to mail them again... But the pic is no longer useful, it's obsolete, and small, it is not worth the effort. best regards. -PedroPVZ (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are from Bari in Italy?
I've taken a pic sometime ago, it is not very good, the tide was low, so the sand bellow the sea looks like an oil split, it's weird, but better than nothing. lol -PedroPVZ (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok. No problem. Although, I think that behaviour of that admin is an abuse of admin powers, that should be avoided in this project. But in this case is irrelevant, as we already spoke. best regards. --PedroPVZ (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Flickr reviewer request[edit]

Hello,

As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. This means that you can start with reviewing Flickr images. I would like to ask you to be carefull and don't review images you upload yourself.

Did you know that there is a nice script you can use to add to Flickrreview buttons to your edit balk? When you add the code below in your monobook.js and you clear the cache you will see 2 new buttons, one for a good review and one for a failed one. 

importScript("User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js");

Please see for more information the Commons:Flickr images/reviewers page, and add {{User trusted}} to your userpage. When you still need help or information feel free to come to my talkpage.

All the best, Huib talk 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! BTW, I've e-mailed Bryan to restart FlickreviewR, and since he didn't reply and is inactive anyway, I've also asked User:Dschwen whether he could take over that bot (or program a replacement for it). Lupo 07:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed him also, my idea was to place a back-up bot on my server so it will not go down when the toolserver will go down, so far no answer. Huib talk 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook[edit]

Monobook notes.

Ramesses XI[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

I'm not sure i have this photo ; are you talking about the ostracon of the Louvre where only a drawing is considered as a portrait of Ramesses XI? (no cartouche on it so it's difficult to assure it indeed) I have to go again to the Louvre i hope next week, then i will take a good shot of this document or any other you need/want. Just tell me.

By the way, thank to you to load the lintel of Ankhefenmut with cartouches of Siamun. That's great ! is it possible to load other files of this amazing collection of the Pennsylvania University Museum?

Regards. Neithsabes (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ibón de l'Acherito.jpg[edit]

You're welcome. It's a pity Manuel is not with us anymore. So, I'm really happy to have contributed to keep an image he uploaded. I don't think we have much more image on Aragonese (a small Spanish region) issues. Best regards and don't hesitate to contact me whenever you think I can be helpful. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding flickrreview with bot[edit]

Hi Leoboudv! I'm running a search with my bot for Flickr images without a review [2]. Lets hope we will not drown in bad images. --MGA73 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just have to remember that not all reviewed files has a normal "review-template" :-) But i stopped the bot, cleaned up, and is ready to try again. --MGA73 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I stopped my bot again (just below 300 images). No need to flood the system. Lets first see how it goes. If 90 % is passed it is ok but if we get to many "failed" then it would be nice if we can empty the categories before the bot finds a new load.
So feel free to comment. If you find some images that should not be marked for review please let me know. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot has finished. It did give some files to check. And as you can see from my talk page also some comments. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we once more has some old images that was never reviewed. I moved some of them to the "old" categories to make sure they were not speedied. Maybe we could asume good faith on some of the images that was not found because image was deleted. We have no proof that image was ok but on the other hand we have no signs that image was not free. Once more I found an image that was reviewed but where that review was removed. So we should remember to check file history and any text on the page that might tell us it is ok. Lets hope that new users are better at asking for a Flickrreview--MGA73 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miami County Courthouse clock and Justice.jpg[edit]

Why did you change the permission for this image to a CC license? The Flickr description says "This work is dedicated to the Public Domain. Due to restrictions of the Flickr licensing system, this work is marked with a Creative Commons Attribution License. Please disregard that license." I placed this image into the manual review category manually, because I knew that a bot would not be able to observe that statement. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that was because Leoboudv also missed the text. I changed the license back now that I saw this note. --MGA73 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm sorry if I sounded angry; I was simply confused. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree but[edit]

[3] --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License review[edit]

[4] edit for picasa or ipernity images.

Raymond Burr[edit]

I found an old 1956 film Please Murder Me, which is in the public domain. The good thing about it, is that he plays a lawyer and looks much like he did in Perry Mason. I think this one is a good one for the infobox. I've uploaded 4 images, only 2 are of him, and you can see them at Category:Please Murder Me (film). Regards, Rossrs (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, the one you chose is a clearer image. The other one is a bit dark. I like it from an artistic viewpoint, but for the infobox the lighter image is probably the more suitable of the two. Rossrs (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any free Perry Mason images. I searched on a few websites that host free material and I couldn't find anything. Rossrs (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl Aloud 1.jpg & File:Girl Aloud 2.jpg[edit]

I did something to get them out of Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images. That was the best I could think of right now. I also started removing "Flickr faild" if there is an "OTRS pending" on the image. That way image will get out of the category (for example Category:Recent unfree Flickr images) and we do not have to look at them every time we check the category. --MGA73 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent or not[edit]

Hi! If you read the text at Category:Recent unfree Flickr images you will see this "Images in this category should be deleted if reviewed within 7 days after upload. If they are older, please place them into Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images". If this is to be changed then it should be discussed somewhere. --MGA73 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 11 February 2010 by the administrator or reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date. The license originally specified when this image was uploaded to Commons was CC-BY-3.0. It is unknown whether this license was valid at that time.


Thanks for the edit![edit]

Thanks for associating my flickr page with "author". I would not have thought about doing that. I will definitely utilize your tip in the future!

Thanks again - Cam Vilay (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Leoboudv,

Thank you for your advice. I often become confused with the legalities, copyright laws, such and such, that it did not occur to me to just ask flickr accts for usage. I think the assumption is they'll always say "no". But how is one to know without asking? Such is life, to questions ones own assumption. Thank you. I'm sorry to hear about your health. I sincerely hope that you have a speedy recovery.

Thank you for your contributions, Leoboudv. I enjoy your work. 

Cam Vilay (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesha stela[edit]

Hi Leoboudv,

I hope you're well and healthy.

I went to Louvre last thursday and I took new pictures. I remember your ask of the Mesha Stela and after a long walk and numerous halls and corridors, i discovered it ! I just uploaded three new photos of Mesha Stela : File:Louvre 042010 01.jpg, File:Louvre 042010 02.jpg and File:Louvre 042010 03.jpg.

Better now than never ;) Have a good sunday, Neithsabes (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramio review[edit]

You might want to put this User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js into your monobook.js. It supports Flickr, Panoramio and Picasa. Makes reviewing these files a little easier. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Panoramio files[edit]

You can now use {{Panoramio no source|Leoboudv|2010-05-24}} for files without a Panoramio source. I suggest you tag {{subst:nsd}} as well or use the script. Cheers, ZooFari 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leoboudv/Archive_1&oldid=306593267"