This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ancient Egypt This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list: Needed articles. We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have. Cleanup. To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates? Standardize the Chronology. A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563) Stub sorting Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . . Data sorting. This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library. Egypt This page is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt Africa This page is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica

Ancient Egypt WikiProject
General information Main project page talk Categories talk Participants talk Portal talk Departments & work groups Assessment talk Peer reviews talk Religion work group talk Tasks Articles needing attention talk Article requests/to-do talk Templates {{WikiProject Ancient Egypt}} {{AncientEgypt-stub}} {{Egyptian-myth-stub}} · recent changes

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anedjib#Requested move 6 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 11:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work, including some obvious OR. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For quite a while now @Lertaheiko has bean changing the infoboxs for Egyptian vizier to be Infobox royalty instead of Infobox Egyptian dignitary they often do this under misleading edit summaries like "copyedit"[1] or "category"[2] they also never use the revert button and instead manually revert either because they (somehow) do not know about it or want to avoid sending notisafaction. However this most recent time Lertaheiko has instead changed to Infobox office holder calling it a compromise and staring that it is the same infobox used by Ottoman Viziers I don't believe this I'm much better, so far 2 other users have weighed in and both agree with me the Egyptian dignitary template is better. I simply don't understand how the royalty one is better when Lertaheiko never uses it to add info that the dignitary infobox can't more simply accommodate and though viziers are office holders there also dignitary that are Egyptian and the more specialized type should be used because it was made specifically for to be used for situations like this. I also don't think comparing the ottoman viziers and the Egyptian viziers is a good argument because the ottoman empire and Ancient Egypt were very different, they had fundamentally different government structures and the only reason that have the same name is because "viziers" is a Islamic title and Egypt today is an Islamic nation. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 20:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion? A. Parrot (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion? PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 14:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If two other users have weighed in, where have they done so? And has Lertaheiko responded to the objections? A. Parrot (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

here Lone-078 leaves warnings to stop changing the infoboxs and to stop added unsourceds date (which Lertaheiko also does often) and here[3] NebY reverts one of his infobox edits and calls it a "inappropriate choice of infobox template" PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 18:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) I also pointed out on their talk page[4] that they had made the same edit four times on Ptahhotep and that the guidance about edit-warring and consensus applied there too. They haven't responded or opened a discussion about that article, but at least they haven't reinstated their change on Ptahhotep either. My initial concerns have been around date changes in other articles, particularly replacements of date ranges with circa the midpoint of that range, but I haven't checked their Egyptian history edits for that in detail. NebY (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a set of editing behaviours that Lertaheiko exhibits that I believe need to stop. I am very much tired of seeing edits like these appear on my watchlist. There are a bunch that I haven't reverted simply because I can't keep track of them all and don't want to be dragged into a dozen conflicts over the same issues.

First of all, what is 'Neferuptah' doing at the top of the infobox of Sithathoriunet's article? Second, the persistent addition of an unsourced, improperly sourced, or otherwise synthesized date has to stop:^[a] died c. 1825. According to who? I can guess that they took some date from Amenemhat III's article and picked the mid-point of that.^[b] Several editors have raised concerns about this: Lone-087, Iry-Hor, ChaseKiwi (in a different topic area), NebY (see also above), and myself. Third, they insist on changing the established styles of articles: They were asked by Lone-087 a year ago to stop changing BCE to BC per MOS:ERA (editors have been indeffed for refusing to stop editing these);^[c] they persist in cross-article edit-warring to remove 'pharaoh' from pre-18th dynasty articles without a consensus to do so (even academics often use pharaoh for kings); third they persist in changing the presentation of dynasties (e.g. Twelfth to 12th or Fifth to 5th) without respect to established norms;^[d] finally, they have now turned their attention to changing infoboxes.

This is a behavioural issue, which isn't the domain of this project page. The reason I am stopping here first is for a sanity check. I find these behaviours disruptive. Am I the only one? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one the discussion above is also about @Lertaheiko's behavior, in that case over there improper changing of infobox types which you did not even mention. I think now is a good time to take this to a Administrators' noticeboard perhaps the Edit warring one PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PharaohCrab – I had considered posting my concern in the thread you had opened, but because it was primarily seeking a solution to the content of the dispute I was concerned I'd be derailing it by making it about conduct. Indeed, if you check my User:Mr rnddude/sandbox you can find (collapsed section) where I drafted a post for that thread though with a different example in mind. You can also check Lertaheiko's talk page to see that I notified them of both this thread and your thread in case they had missed or disable pings. My apologies if it came across as if I was ignoring it – feel free to remove the header to subsume my comment into your thread. In terms of noticeboard, ANEW is specifically for technical violations of 3RR (or 1RR/0RR for articles in CTOPs or user restrictions), so I think AN/I would be the expected venue for these issues. Addendum: Re-reading your post now, while the header is content oriented, the post is as much about conduct as my thread. I should have just posted there. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1: Neferuptah was a mistake. Should be Sithathoriunet.

2: She died during the reign of Amenemhat III. Sources: Brunton: Lahun I, p. 43 and Dodson & Hilton, p.94.

3: I'll stop changing BCE to BC. It doesent matter all that much anyway. Same with dynasty names, even though it there is more consensus to do the former.

4: Pharoh only started being used for the ruler of Egypt during the 18th dynasty. It is Anachronistic.

5: I stopped changing infoboxes for Viziers and Treasurers after PharaohCrab explained why he wanted to use them. Lertaheiko (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will focus on one issue at a time, and since the first issue arose as a mistake, I will accept that as a one-off. Thus to the second: She died during the reign of Amenemhat III does not explain where 'died c. 1825 BC' comes from, especially considering Amenemhat III reigned for 45–48 years. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to the discussion but I'd like to point out that Lertaheiko is engaging in similar behavior in articles about Mesopotamian rulers and other historical figures, too. Regularly adding unsourced dates, changing titles (it is actually meaningful that rulers of Eshnunna called themselves ensi, ie. "governor", and not lugal, ie. "king"!), changing infobox types and a peculiar bias against the formula BCE and diacritics are what I've observed. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He was a king. This is what it says in the article: "Ipiq-Adad II was a king of the city kingdom of Eshnunna in ancient Mesopotamia." "later in his reign he shifted to describing himself as lugal (king)." Lertaheiko (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is also part of the Kings of Eshnunna. Lertaheiko (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that Lertaheiko was a sockpuppet of a user called Edgenut so they have not been banned PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 02:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up in the aftermath: Lertaheiko added speculative, unsourced (even unsourceable) dates to hundreds of ancient Egyptian biographies (particularly of minor personages). I am typically constrained in my editing focus, but will endeavour to clean-up some of these articles that have been impacted by the addition of original research content. Below I have left a copy of the notice that I had left a few other users, it serves as a notice for the project itself. The user has also been active in at least the ancient Roman and ancient Mesopotamian topic spaces. There may still be users in other ancient history topic spaces that have been unaware of the issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it pertinent to notify you of the outcome of this AN/I filing with regard to Lertaheiko. The user turned out to be a sockpuppet of a previously indefinitely blocked user that had been plaguing the ancient Roman topic space with the same types of unsourced content that have been affecting the ancient Egyptian and ancient Mesopotamian topic spaces. NebY had noticed that Lertaheiko had created their account the day after Edgenut was indefinitely blocked. See the SPI. Consider this a BOLO notice for a new editor exhibiting the same editing patterns. If you know anyone else that edits ancient history topics that could benefit from notification, feel free to do so. Regards,

This serves as a notice for the ancient Egypt project page. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Demotic (Egyptian)#Requested move 16 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]