User talk:Natritmeyer

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Natritmeyer!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Bull-site-standing-stone.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bull-site-standing-stone.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Salcombe Cannon Wreck and Moor Sands Sites.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Salcombe Cannon Wreck and Moor Sands Sites.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Herbythyme.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The Standing Stone at the Bull Site

Hi Nat, and thanks for all your great contributions.

I thought the "Bull Site" was kept as a bit of a secret, so as not to attract looters, vandals, or any type of wrong public? Now it's a bit late to remove the coordinates, although maybe not. Do you consult with archaeologists, such as your father, in such situations? I mean when you create new articles or add coordinates to remote sites. A lot of sites which are not protected and guarded might be far better off without too many visitors. Please do consider.

The second reason why I'm here: it's a bit counterintuitive to show a bunch of stones, all laying down, and put the caption "The Standing Stone". I'm pretty sure which one used to be standing, but it would help if you pointed it out. Especially if someone tries to find in the picture a Bretagne- or Gezer-size menhir. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Arminden,

Regarding the location of the Bull Site, if it's meant to be a secret then the conspiracy is doing a remarkably bad job of it - the coordinates are given in a number of publications, including in those by the archaeologists who excavated it. Though there in't a National Parks sign pointing the way, the site is very easy to find - even I managed :) The point about unprotected sites being vulnerable to looting, you're quite right. The thing is, as you're probably well aware, the vast majority of archeological sites around the world (especially so in the Middle East?) are unprotected. This is true even for large, important sites such as w:Tel Lachish, yet their pages still give their coordinates.

I'm not aware of any wikipedia guideline that says an editor should request permission before adding coordinates to a wikipedia article, though I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me. That aside, I was in communication with Ralph Hawkins when I wrote the w:Khirbet el-Mastarah article - he thanked me for putting it together.

About the "standing stone", that's what it's called in the literature. The same literature explains that it may never have been standing, Obelix-menhir-style. I'll update the description to make it clear that the large stone right in the middle of the picture is the one indicated.

Natritmeyer (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nat,

Thank you for your kind and detailed reply. No, there's no rule anywhere against putting coordinates on WP. It's just very obvious that the IAA is always trying to keep sites were they found items which would be considered valuable on the illicit antiquities market anonymous and harder to identify. Second, I had the pleasure of hearing about the "bull site" from Prof. Barkay, who was very reluctant to give details about where it is other than "near Jenin". Yes, you may call him an oldtimer, but he's very knowledgeable and had his good reasons. The Israel Museum site only indicates "Samaria region". All scientific publications contain details about the respective digs, but they hardly ever leave the confines of university libraries, and online - they're either not very present if the digs are old, or behind a paywall. So it's about putting it out there on WP, with full access to anyone. Poverty is pushing a lot of people to try their luck with a shovel (and a metal detector, if they can afford to buy one). Now there's a Hebrew article translated from yours, too, and the genie is quickly pushing its way out of the bottle. In any case, I only mentioned consulting an archaeologist, nothing about asking for permission. But I'm probably sooo 1998, or 2005, or... No offense meant.

There are lots of truly standing stones in the Levant. The Negev and the adjacent deserts are full of such stones (see Uzi Avner's Sacred Stones in the Desert), Gezer has the largest ones I know of this side of the Jordan and the Petra (Jabal al-Madhbah) "obeliscs" are the largest on the other side, and such standing stones are also dealt with in the Bible. So calling a cultic table or stone slab laying on the ground a "standing stone" seems a bit out of the way and hardly a standard term. I did love my Asterix & Obelix in school, but Getafix hasn't been my inspiration here. So I guess they probably first thought it's been standing and then didn't want to posit smth hard to prove, but the old name had stuck already, but that either has to be explained, or people would probably think what I thought: a standing stone that fell over. I just found Robert Mullins' (2012) EBR article which reads: "At the eastern end of the enclosure was a large, slightly worked stone lying on its long, narrow side (size). The bull figurine was found nearby. This slab may have been a standing stone (Heb. massebâ; cf. Gen 35 : 14) or an altar (cf. Gen 12 : 8)." So either or, as I had thought - one term doesn't cover both options.

PS: it hurts me every time I'm passing next to unprotected West Bank sites I've first seen some 20 years ago, like Tulul Abu el-Alayiq or Archelais. People are building as long there's no-one to stop them, and trying to make money of objects "in their backyard" when there's little income to come by, but that's not the point. Lachish is in no danger of being built over and the IAA does keep an eye on it. It's true that even a place like the Avdat National Park could be vandalised once, but that was the exception and the culprits were caught (and had no idea of what they'd actually done).

PPS: Now I see that you've posted in great detail how you figured out how to get there. Bye, bye, genie. And yes, I would insist if I may: please, do ask Dr. Ritmeyer about his opinion on this issue. If rather obscure, but important sites that are unprotected and hold the potential promise of valuable findings should be widely publicised, with coordinates, on platforms such as Wikipedia. I hugely respect his work, and whatever he'll answer is fine with me. I would even appreciate if you would give me a short ping about it. I fully appreciate your intentions (which we share), enthusiasm, and input. Have a great time and stay healthy, Arminden (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Armiden,

Thanks for the kind reply :)

So, there's the specific issue of the Bull Site's location, and also the wider point about (effectively) publicising the location of obscure archaeological sites. I'll address each in turn.

First of all, I have no issue with you removing the coordinates from the article. It appears to me that you feel more strongly that they should be removed than I feel that they should remain. I won't take any offence. If you've visited the site you'll know as well as I that the site consists of a bunch of rocks sitting on bedrock, with a grand total of anywhere between 0-5cm of soil sitting on top. There's literally nothing to loot. There's so little there that the time archaeologists have spent there is measured in _days_. Should looters turn up, they're going to go away empty handed. So yeah, the genie is gone. But, in the case of the Bull Site, the genie is pretty inconsequential.

A far bigger potential risk to the site is the quarrying that's happening only a short distance away. I spent hours and hours trying to find information about the quarry but turned up nothing. If it's one of the many illegal quarries operating in the West Bank then *that's* what I'd worry about and would like to bring attention to. That's the significantly bigger genie to be worrying about.

On the wider point, there are a couple of things to note.

The first is that for many of these obscure sites, the various genies are long gone. The Bible Walks website lists loads of them, and for each of them provides detailed maps and instructions on how to get there. For example, if someone doesn't beat me to it, the next wikipedia article I hope to write is on Khirbet Marjameh (after my next visit - I'll need some photos of it first). If I added the coords to the article, I wouldn't be adding any more info than can be found here. Sure, BibleWalks isn't quite as accessible as wikipedia, but google has done a pretty good job of linking to it on the first search results page. There's also the Bible Geocoding site which provides the coordinates for many more sites. I could provide more examples, but you get my point. The information you're objecting to being on wikipedia is not restricted to dusty articles in obscure journals or heavy encyclopaedias chained to a library desk. The information really is easily available - much more than you may realise.

The second point is that the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. The downsides of sharing the location of "lootable" sites probably outweigh the benefits. For future articles I'll leave the coords off if they aren't already available online - if the genie is out there's no point in pretending it isn't. If if it's still in the bottle, I won't pull the cork. Is that reasonable?

Finally, you seem to know a great deal about me. That's fine until it makes the conversation a little lopsided. If Arminden is insisting I consult with my dad (not a little patronising), who is Arminden?

Natritmeyer (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, looters also have [these tremendously detailed maps] available to them. Maybe they don't know about them, but I doubt it.

Natritmeyer (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nat,

Sorry, have been busy elsewhere. I intended no offense. My father, like yours, is very much respected for his professional work and when I dabbled in his area of activity I never saw it as an embarrassment to ask for his advice. That's one, so nothing patronising about it. You chose to be rather open about your identity, it takes no Sherlock Holmes to figure out in a minute who you are, that's your choice, mine is different. But that plays no part in this, none.

Nothing to loot? Why did you make all that effort to get there? Well? And where there's one bronze bull, there might be more "goodies". I remembered to write to you after listening to this podcast: you can google for Kan English News, press on News - 14.05.21, and fast-forward to minute 43. The man in the know is talking about damage to sites in Samaria. You'll see, looters using metal detectors are part of the problem.

Maps or not: we all know how the internet works. There have always been libraries and maps, but posting illustrated stories attracts 100,000x more viewers than a map or books in a library.

Beyond all these logical arguments: it's of course also about a general set of mind. Like an ecologically-minded person would always try and recycle plastic bags even if there's hardly any chance of an industrial plant actually reusing the material, if one cares for preserving the archaeological sites, this kind of detailed "how to get there" instructions are touching a nerve.

That's all. I mean it, in case you haven't talked yet to Dr. Ritmeyer about his opinion, please do, and please, I would very much appreciate if you would ping me (you know, double curvy brackets { + the word ping + a bar | + Arminden + double curvy brackets } ; at least on Wikipedia this leads me to receiving a message and looking up what's there), because I'm really interested in his opinion. Again, no offence meant, I would do the same immediately.

Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open!

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2022) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)