Talk:Itanus

Expansion

Individual sections needed on history (Classical Antiquity to the present), myths (foundation stories, appearances in literature of Classical Antiquity), and excavations (history of excavations, major finds, what this tells us about the history of the city). Ajcee7 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Itanos (city). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029004448/http://lci.tf1.fr/science/histoire/site-archeologique-itanos-images-5518691.html to http://lci.tf1.fr/science/histoire/site-archeologique-itanos-images-5518691.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.persee.fr/web/guest/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Toyotsu

Hello Toyotsu. You have made some pretty ambitious changes for a beginner. Still, you want to get it right. So do I. When you are dealing with a stub I think you get a little bit of leeway until the article gets better developed. You've chosen not to give that leeway. You didn't even put the material over here for consideration. No, it doesn't work that way. That material is common knowledge and there are good references for it. It must be an integral part of the article; it just is not certain where. You are technically right, it currently has no references. Fine. I can play that game too. I put the material back where I think it might go as commented out material. Kindly leave it there. It won't be long before I get to it. If necessary we can put it over here. That would be an extra tedious step that should not be necessary. I wouldn't appreciate it and would feel you are dogging me. We don't dog people on WP. So, be patient. Right now I am thinking of the archaeology section, but it is not clear to me whether history or archaeology should come first. If you DO actually have a view, mention it here, will you? I think I have said enough now. We don't get to argue on WP. It uses valuable space. From now on I will just be doing it.Botteville (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. As a matter of principle all information on Wikipedia has to be confirmed by a source. An example of mistake that was present in the article and that I edited away: the mention of Tyrian purple. Actually the purple, part of trade by Itanians, was extracted from shells on the local island of Koufonisi (Crete). Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You're a vandal. Stop impeding development of the article. Naturally it is not in final form and can't get any further as long as you are allowed to delete all developments. As for the purple, It was made by different peoples at different locations. I ask you to stop deleting and put up tags so I can see what you are doing, if anything.Botteville (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

One more time for the other users. Since you are contesting everything I do and I disagree. The material in question needs a public review. The way this is done is to put a tag on the material, such as "unsourced,", so that it can be discussed. I have just reverted your deletion of my contribution to the history and added a reference to it. You cannot now delete referenced material without other good reason. As to its relevance, I am going to present a few paragraphs on he name of Itanos, and whether it can be bronze age. Right now, as in one of my other statements you deleted and I put back as a comment, the date of foundation of the city is in the geometric period, and the founders must have spoken Greek, as the Hellenistic inscriptions are in Doric Greek. That is the relevance. However it is your method that I believe is vandalism as you persist in it while I am trying to work even though I asked you to stop. When the three reversions are up the material will be reviewed by an admin, who will make a decision. You do not have a UP and your knowledge of the system is obviously rather limited, as well as your knowledge of the subject material. The only thing really you have been able to add is to put the breathing and accent on Itanos. Nevertheless I appreciate that and have thanked you for it. Meanwhile I suggest you join the community proper by putting in a UP and responding to the legitimate suggestions of other users (me).Botteville (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, look at the history of the article, and you will see that I contributed much more than breathing and accent. I am sorry but your recent additions were either wrong (Tyrian purple) or irrelevant as you managed to write a whole paragraph that did not mention at all Itanos. And nothing was sourced. This is not the way you add material on a Wikipedia article. Best --Toyotsu (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is a more civil reply. I think, however, your approach is too cursory. Let's review it for a moment. First, you attribute too much to me. I didn't do the Tyrian purple. That came from the previous article, which was a stub, and not a very good one. The author actually seemed to be aiming for the idea that Itanos was Phoenician, based of their storied mastery of the purple art. The theme is underdeveloped. Now, how can we the other users address it if you just cut it out? I seldom cut anything out unless I can replace it, and that gets around to the main contradiction in your approach. You want to see everything complete as soon as it appears. The only way that can be done is to work it up offline and dump it in. Otherwise it has to be done piecemeal. If you are standing over my shoulder and deleting everything I put is before it even gets in then the process becomes difficult and tedious and wastes space on argument. I have dumped things in and if you force me to I will have to do it here. Don't run for the arcitration committee. If your way is the right way, then just what good are all the dozens of editing tags that WP recommends? You may as well just hack out thousands of stubs. I have cut out, I don't deny, but it is only because I am replacing it or the tag has been on for so long people have forgotten it was on. I might also just delete the tag, if it seems wrong and unaddressed. Now, you are only able to catch my writing in an unfinished state because you are dogging me, and that I find objectionable. It is like interrupting someone in mid-sentence to complain that they did not finish the sentence. That is a great disruption technique but this is a building process. Now, just so you will know, I started with the intro and am down to the first section of history. For the rest of the previous article below I do not give a hang about it and am going to re-work it anyway, but it would be nice to see it there as fill-in until I get to it. I guess you got to decide for yourself but WP suggests you leave the reference material alone and don't forget, in the three-reversion rule you come out on the losing side. Best not to go head-to-head with me, but I do appreciate any legitimate contributions you make, as I am too old to hold grudges. I got to get some sleep now.Botteville (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually I was hoping for an apology for the "You're a vandal". Your tone is generally unpleasant and unnecessarily patronizing (the precise reference for u-ta-no is Ventris & Chadwick 1956 / Documents in Mycenaean Greek pp. 307-308 and you can see a nice picture of the tablet here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1910-0423-1) --Toyotsu (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely, I do apologize for calling you a vandal. At the time your abruptness, unwillingness to discuss and apparent lack of knowledge of the field yet mute abruptness led me to that conclusion. Since that time your discussion and restraint from further deletions have led me to think otherwise. You do know something of the field. I think now it is a matter to method. Maybe we can work it out. If in fact you are going around deleting unreferenced material I can see why you'd be so persistent. I'm different though, but how are you supposed to know that? I will try to do more development offline and dropping it in but this will probably mean more work for you. Also it should not make any difference but it is only fair to say I have had some educational exposure to the Bronze Age despite myself but my teachers are mainly gone now. i am sorry if I seem patronizing but you clearly know less. Your statement "the precise reference for u-ta-no ..." (please, no need to wince, we are all amateurs here). There is no precise reference for u-ta-no. V & C wrote a lot of stuff together. I chose an article of theirs that details their stand on the place names though it precedes Documents. The latter doesn't tell you much on some specific areas. Don't worry, I got my copy. But more importantly it has been over 70 years since 1950. Many have chosen to elucidate V & C. I look for the theses. In my day no one ever suspected the theses would go online, and there was no Internet, except possibly as a US Army communications device put out by a soundproofing company staffed by some very unpleasant and often misguided arrogant men. NOW look at it. Anyway I am about to use other more recent sources to examine what the likelihood of Itanos being u-ta-no is and whether Itanos can really be Bronze Age. This is in response to your deleting a significant statement from the overview. By the way do you know about WP Library? You can get a look at a lot of these articles controlled by archiving companies. Also Hesperia, the U of Cincinnati's journal, is mainly online for free. This ain't the old days when only a select few could ever get close to the research journals carefuly hoarded by special libraries. Anyway I am sorry I may have sparked your desire for swift vengeance by knowing more than you. In the academic world it would cost me my career and earn the eternal hatred of the doyens behind the scenes. That is why WP was created. Ciao. This time would be better spent on the article. If you continue to feel pain I recommend cold packs, but this stuff is going down, unless you have the rank to override it, in this little army of the amateurs.

You mention the old standby V & C Documents. It was decades before I could even get a copy for under a thousand (I did not pay that) but if you are going to use it you need the 2nd ed. with Chadwick's gracious remarks in deference to his untimely deceased colleague. As I say, the articles I select are probably going to be more to the point.Botteville (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

cite ptolemy inadequate

Our cite ptolemy template doesn't reference any Ptolemy of which I know. Ptolemy does not have volumes, he has books and chapters. The only thing about 3.17.4 that matches is Book 3. Vol. 3.17.4 doesn't mean anything. But we can find Itanos is exactly one list in Book 3 Ch 15. So, I'm changing it.Botteville (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

PS. We got the same problem with the Stephanos of Byzantium template. It does not have any volumes either. It is a straight dictionary. So, I'm taking the liberty, but it looks as though they need more write-up anyway. Botteville (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Phoenician theory

Hello @Botteville:. There is no modern reference in the whole paragraph; as admitted in a note, Stephanos does not say "Phoenician city". For the moment it looks like a personal idea, not something that belongs to an encyclopedia article. If left unsourced, I intend to edit it out. Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If you edit it out I intend to put it back. You talk about one paragraph. Since then I added several. But, I especially assume you mean "the Phoenician city." Well. You are in fact dogging my tail. First, generally speaking, it is not necessary to reference every possible statement. Whatever is general knowledge does not need a reference. But of course, the question is, what is general knowledge. What is general to one is not to another. What do you do with people like you who know absolutely nothing about it, except that ancient Greek initial vowels take a breathing mark and have accents? I could have argued that it was modern Greek, which often doesn't use those marks. But, I'm not looking for a fight, in contrast to you. I do not know who you are or why you are doing it. I doubt if it has a thing to do with this encyclopedia, but that is not the policy. The policy is, to take what you say at face value, no matter how absurd that is. In writing about these things we do not always know when to put a ref in. However, if someone requests a ref, then unless there is a very good reason not to give it, one should give it. You have requested one. You didn't need to put in all this other personal invective about it being my invention. I specifically asked you to put in a tag, a request for a ref. Everyone else does, why not you? You like to bully and threaten? Regardless, I always make a point of replying to critiques or requests if I can. So, I am going to accomodate you on the assumption that if you question these things and are looking for references then others will also. So, give me a bit of time. By the way, where is your user page? Don't you want to hang your hat here or are you trying to avoid something? Are you a secret soc puppet or what? Soc puppetry is against the rules. It has not escaped my attention that you are not doing this to anyone else, only to me. But, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.Botteville (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've wasted enough space on you. You ae a vandal.Botteville (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the only sentence about Itanos you can read in the article Bourogiannis, Giorgos (2018). "The Phoenician Presence In The Aegean During The Early Iron Age: Trade, Settlement And Cultural Interaction". Revista di Studi Fenice. XLVI. (available at https://www.academia.edu/43224511/_The_Phoenician_presence_in_the_Aegean_during_the_Early_Iron_Age_trade_settlement_and_cultural_interaction_Rivista_di_Studi_Fenici_46_2018_43_88?auto=download )

Quite surprisingly, ancient literary evidence alluding to the presence of Phoenicians on Crete is rather limited, as in the case of Itanos, the town at the north-eastern promontory of Crete that was presumably founded by Phoenix’s own son.

. This shows that this paragraph is overblown and not of encyclopedic nature.--Toyotsu (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, doesn't show any such thing. What do you mean "overblown?" That's too vague to mean anything. We don't just delete stuff because we think it is "overblown." The ref supports the interpretation it was intended to support.Botteville (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The strange case of Toyotsu

This Toyotsu just keeps deleting everything I do using any hypocritical and untrue excuse. I've asked him to put on tags so we can discuss it and try to get some consensus. He just keeps deleting and reverting. This is totally not Wikipedic. How long is the administration going to allow this to go on? He has no UP and is obviously some kind of soc puppet. He is not respecting any 3-rule or any other rule. I put this before you. Nothing can be done on any article in which this is allowed to happen.Botteville (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

PS. Toyotsu is wasting all of our time here and will until stopped. I will save up my reversions until he finishes. Go ahead, Toyotsu, finish your sick game, wise guy. If there are any real issues anyone wants to present, please state them here and we will look for consensus as usual. I have the article offline Naturally, we cannot make progress on it until this problem is solved. Sorry.Botteville (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Again I am sorry to see that you limit yourself to personal attacks, and do not answer to my comments. As noted above, if a recent article about "The Phoenician Presence In The Aegean During The Early Iron Age: Trade, Settlement And Cultural Interaction" does not say anything about a "Phoenician theory" for Itanos, Wikipedia cannot have a paragraph about this topic. Wikipedia needs sources and references. Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a cynical lie. But, in the event you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures, here is how it works. You are NOT at liberty just to delete without discussion referenced material. Moreover, you do NOT discuss in the delete reason. The proper way to do it is bring it up here, where the discussion can be opened to the public. You then say in the delete reason, "see discussion." I've already asked you to do this numberless times. Why would you continue not to do it? I'm not going to explain it again. Your reasoning is way off the mark. It isn't Wikipedian. I am still recommending the article be locked. But, since you have brought a few things up I will take this opportunity to answer, regretfully, as I think I am wasting my time and our space.

The "Phoenician Theory" problem. There may be an English problem here, I don't know, but there is certainly a logic problem. You bring up two separate issues, the article you mention and whether WP needs references. They are not related. You seem to be saying we can't use "Phoenician theory." In English we just say things directly. I'll assume you mean to say that.

Issue 1. Whether we can say anything different from what some article says. We can. Different articles take different stands. If we find different stands in different articles we are encouraged to give both consideration pointing out that there is a difference. We use language like "Jones says ... but Smith says ..." We do not present any view as the absolute truth. Just because an article says one thing we are not obliged to accept that as truth, only obliged to report that the author presents it and to say what he presents. So, we can present this author's view as theory even though he swears up and down it is truth. The article you cite does not restrict us in any way except to report it correctly.

Issue 2. Whether we can use "Phoenician Theory" without a reference using it. We can, as it is ordinary English. You want us to say it is not a theory, but is the truth as presented by the article? No way. Many scholars deny the city was founded by Phoenicians. They think it was founded by Eteocretans. You want us to say, it was definitely founded by Phoenicians and we should not even refer to it as a theory. No. That is not my perception. I feel if you knew more you wouldn't think so either. These people, you know, they write at different times when different views are popular. Tell you what. If you don't like MY language, YOU come up with an appropriate title and I will consider it. It must reflect the fact that there are different beliefs about the influence of the Phoenicians. I got more to say but I am not saying it until we get you educated or the article gets locked. If you think you can get away with just deleting anything you disagree with you are mistaken. Sooner or later things will catch up. The fact that you are doing it seems really wierd to me. Other than that I know nothing at all about you, so none of this is personal as you say it is.

Issue 3. You didn't put this in here but you listed it as a deletion reason. Whether we can use Bronze Age protohistory as a title. We can. We aren't obliged to use other commonly used titles or anyone else's titles at all. This encyclopedia develops the idea of proto-history, and so do some sources. Fragmentary written documentation is definitely proto-history. Moreover, your claims that the supporting detail is not encyclopedic are pretty wild. Articles need to be developed in order to be understood. Tell you what. Come up with an alternative name and I will consider it. No, we can't just delete it. I-ta-no and U-ta-no appear elsewhere in WP. The ball is in your court. Without common decision here at some point I will just put it all back.Botteville (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, come with references, and the discussion will progress.--Toyotsu (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is referenced. If you want something specific referenced you put in a request for a reference on that spot. I've mentioned this before. Why do you not comply? I do not think you have any intention of "discussing." You delete referenced material saying it is not referenced. You refuse to discuss until it is, in your view. Yet, you don[t say what you want referenced. You use such vague terms as "overblown" and assert that because someone out there wrote an article we can't even write about the topic as a theory. I ask you for alternatives and you give me nothing. I suppose you will keep on with this hypocritical nonsense as long as you find it amusing and no one puts a stop to it. Don't you think WP is a useful tool and ought to be taken seriously? I'm not going to insult the juveniles by calling you one. I recommend you get off WP immediately and stop trying to wreck an honest effort and a good idea.Botteville (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Recommendation 1. Locking the article

In view of this situation that has developed, of one user without a UP and no substantial contributions refusing to discuss anything but just repeatedly deleting everything done, I recommend this article be locked at the lowest level. It does not seem to me anything can be done on it until it is restricted to serious-minded editors.Botteville (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Last cut of the BA

If you want to just call it Bronze Age I got no obection. However, you cut out everything it was trying to say. What's the good of citing Bennet if you just cut out his main point? There are two points to be made. First, the names are in Linear B but they are really Linear A. Second, they do not refer to Itanos on the cape, which means that name is independent of Knossos and must have been used by Minoan settlements there. So. some of that has to back. As for the Phoenician theory, you offer nothing there, but the Phoenecian Theory is is an important topic in the study of Itanos. What, don't you like encyclopedic articles? You seem to think everything can be covered by a sentence or two. History of the world, so to speak, in one paragraph. Actually, this is good experience for me, how to get an article done in the face or persistent opposition. I think the best solution is to lock the article. I'll keep you posted on why I don't accept your approach. In the first section you stripped out anything meaningful. I don't really understand your persistence in stripping the article down to nothing I don't suppose you got any intention of telling me. WP should not be an encyclopedia of stubs.Botteville (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

PS. I'm going to call you spook, because you are haunting me in this article. Well, spook, your current approach is much better than your original, which was to hack out everything I was trying to do with some hypocritical drummed up reason leaving the article even worse than it was before. Worse, WP was letting you get away with it, so you seemed to have some kind of "in" and did not have to follow the policy. Personally I knew you had to be better than that because, as you were showing me, you had enough Greek to work with it. I never said I always had the best way of expressing things but your approach was very insulting. Now you have taken to altering some of my text and adding things. This is a much better approach as it is more like cooperation in developing the article. More human, less like a deranged wierdo striking out of the dark for unknown and sinister motivations. If you want to rewrite some of my text because you think you can make it better, don't look for any objection from me. Any writer has to expect his material to be edited. If you want to edit rather than disrupt that is a much better approach. I do not say I will always agree.Botteville (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Update

I think we are making progress. The outline is standing and you are taking some of my text and have not opposed the formatting. I did look up the history of the article. As far as I can determine you introduced the article as a stub. That was 12 years ago, 2010. These things have to grow into articles, and if you won't do it, you have to let someone else do it. An article on this topic is definitely a desideratum for the archaeology repertoire. I know what it should say and there are plenty of sources. I will keep on with this but you have increased the cost of anyone doing so. That is why no one does it. This article is behind expectation. Ordinarily I would not take it except this one is behind. You've managed to conceal your history here behind this front of no UP and leaving the welcome to WP sign up. I don't know who you are or what your powers here are but I know there must be a reason for the misdirection and the failure of any admins to step in. If I did know it wouldn't make any difference. I'm not going to get started with the name-calling again. I'm going on with this, but I have to split my time now. I will be getting stuff in, slowly. Eventually it will accumulate.Botteville (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Toyotsu dialog

User Toyotsu has assumed the position of reviewing every change I make on this article and deleting or altering most of them. The situation has improved since we started, as he used to delete everything even referenced material. Moreover, he does not respect the three-reversion rule. Apparently I'm the only editor he is concerned with in this way. I know of few other articles developed in this way. The situation is not hopeless as he often accepts my reversions or revisions. We are making progress; however, we seem to be going around in circles. We abandon a point of view only to adopt it again. Part of the problem is that he is using the reason for change as his platform for discussion, which I incorrectly have been going along with. This isn't right so I am moving the discussion back here. I don't feel that this level of monitoring is appropriate and I note that the discussion has been getting very long. But, we are making progress. I get the impression that part of it may be an English problem. Anyway this section is for the discussion. I did call previously for admin aide. None else seems to take much of an interest. There are no consensuses, no yeas or nays. And yet, it seems to me this is an important article.

comment May 7. Most of your comment is not comprehensible. Are you saying discussion is not possible? Rethymno. The topic is FN sites in East Crete. The theory is that the hill forts were caused by pressure of immigration through Sitia and Rethymno. Rethymno is therefore relevant as well as Sitia. However we are somewhat limited in space by the table format. Brevity seem better than a longer explanation. I'm removing "beyond the island" because that is implied by "immigration" as immigrants must be coming from outside Crete.Botteville (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I am saying that discussion with you is difficult, and the above rant is a perfect illustration of the issue. Do you think that is it a nice way to address your interlocutor ? As for Rethymno, in our last dispute, not being in East Crete, not being mentioned in the source Nowicki 2012 in relation to Itanos, there is no need to talk about it at that point in the article. You are right about removing "beyond the island". Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling my legitimate complaints a rant is not very nice or civil. However I have seen critics that are worse. You seemed to ask for this when I had the option of just leaving the article flat rather than having to put up with a self-appointed "interlocutor" such as you. You're a slippery interlocutor, no doubt, always seeming to save yourself at the last moment. So here we are in the proper discussion area. Let's get on with it. Relevance: well, if a culture spills over east crete into another area as does the FN and you want to talk about the whole culture then you have to mention the other area. But, if all these provisos and explanations have to be covered then the topic is bigger than what we can talk about in a table entry. There is still EM to go in that entry. I put up with your BS because economy IS a concern and often something better and more economical can be said there. That is why I do not insist. I say BS because Rethymno is too mentioned in Nowicki 2012 and you deleted the note quoting it. You delete the reference then you say it is unreferenced. That just seems cynical and hypocritical to me, as when some Internet site BSers stole my writing on WP and accused me of stealing from them. I could fight that out as I say but I changed my mind for other reasons. I do that often as the topic unfolds. Hypocrisy is a bad habit to be in. You ought to quit it, whoever you are. Even if you are a professional hypocrite you need to learn to control it as it will catch up to you. I think we are up to date now so I am going on. We can't afford this discussion all the time.Botteville (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Again, you are unnecessarily unpleasant and you are proving once more that discussion with you is difficult. As for the only mention of Rethymno by Nowicki 2012, here it is:

It cannot be accidental that in some areas, as for example the East Siteia Peninsula and the southern coast of the Rethymnon Isthmus, nearly all coastal points offering convenient natural harbours, few occupied earlier, were taken by FN II settlers.

. First, Itanos being on the northern side of the island is not concerned by the mention of Rethymno. Second, the sentence is clearly balanced to show that it mentions 2 regions, and the one Itanos belongs to is Sitia (as shown by the map Fig. 1). I was right to delete this sentence because it is irrelevant to Itanos, a place not mentioned in Nowicki article by the way (except on the map mentioned above). Yours --Toyotsu (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again. No, you started being unecessarily unpleasant when you just deleted everything I was trying to do without discussion and even though it was referenced, and continued to do so no matter how often I reverted it. Then you started offering absurd and confused excuses for what you were doing and offering your personal opinions for WP policy. I'm trying to improve this article and you are (or were) throwing every obstacle in the way. Now, if you want to quit that we will get along much better. You yourself invited me to stay rather than leaving you with a message that says you're a vandal. I think you secretly want this to happen. This is just to clear the air about who is being nasty to whom. All other persons who have attempted this approach proved to have ulterior motives and did not last on here. However, if you choose to stay I am not giving up on you. I note that your methods have been improving and that the article is slowly taking shape. I think enough has been said, but you aren't going to escape responsibility by pinning it on me. Now, on the Rethymno, I see we are having a genuine disagreement. The protocol would be an advertisement for a consensus, but no one else seems much interested and we might wait until hell freezes over for one. So, I am sidestepping. As I said, the space is better used for something else, as this understandably probably will turn out to be a long article. I admit I have been able to use a lot of what you say one way or the other. I see you do care what I think, which a purely ulterior person would not. Take five. I got to do some other things for a bit. We got as far as the first line of the table. Will pick up from there later. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Change of strategy

Toyotsu, original contributor of this article, and I were having a very strange confrontation in which he deleted everything I did and I would have to put something back with reference to just about everything I said, a slow, tedious process, in which he followed no rules, not offering any explanation other than "unreferenced" "unencyclopedic" and the like. He was deleting referenced material and then he started following me to other articles. He had little other record. Apparently I was his chief mission in life or else he managed to conceal his past career. I complained a number of times but nothing was done. Just when I decided to go ahead anyway he suddenly disappeared. I like to think he either managed his rage better or WP finally stepped in.

In any case I got off this article because of a strategic problem that was beginning to happen. East Crete is actually scantily documented. Just about everything you might say here remained totally unsupported elsewhere, forcing me to try to expand this article to cover it. I generally don't like to start new articles, as response to WP has been prolific, and plenty of articles exist, needing only to be worked over. Not this time. In working on the supporting geopolitical articles I discovered a pretty spotty coverage. It was obvious that if coverage was going to have even the semblance of continuity I was going to have to do it. So I started with the new articles. Now, one of my problems with this article is its size. A huge amount of supporting archaeology has been done on the topic, a large amount of speculation has been made from the early days of scholarship. If I went ahead, being prevented from summarizing in my own words, this article would end up being too large, I fear, without being anomalous. So, just as I found it necessary to change strategy with the supporting articles and start creating new articles, so I think this material for this article needs to be covered in a number of new supporting articles. That is why I have not gone on. My departure point was the Itanos Archaeological Survey, a big topic. I propose to break that out into its own articles. Another topic I foresee as problematical is the inscriptions. The site is known for a couple of famous inscriptions, such as the one on the arbitrated land dispute, and another on the oath of citizenhsip. The topics just seem to go on and on. Nevertheless that is the road I would now go down. I put this before you. The topic is not archaeologically or inscriptionally unimportant. If you have a comment, make it now. I still have some work elsewhere. I will give you a few weeks to respond. If no response, I will start going ahead with it.Botteville (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

While Botteville has been doing a good job on this article, his tone, as shown here, made collaboration and discussion difficult, and all in all I am pretty confident that my comments have been helpful and led to a better article. Pleasure --Toyotsu (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)