This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.persee.fr/web/guest/homeWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
. This shows that this paragraph is overblown and not of encyclopedic nature.-- Toyotsu ( talk) 22:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
. 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)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.
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.persee.fr/web/guest/homeWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
. This shows that this paragraph is overblown and not of encyclopedic nature.-- Toyotsu ( talk) 22:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
. 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)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.
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)