User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Deucalionite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Material copied/moved here from my and Deucalionite's talk pages

[edit] Some of your articles

Hello Deucalionite. I don't want you to feel that I'm "stalking" you, so I guess I'd better be upfront about what I'm going to say to you now. I got curious about a few things you had written in some articles I chanced upon recently, and then started to go through a few items in the list of articles you have on your userpage. And I hate to say I found quite a few things that I believe are severe quality problems. Most of all, I noticed that many of your articles lack proper sourcing and there seems to be quite a bit of "original research" going on in some of them. Now, rather than just throwing "{unsourced}" or "{prod}" tags around behind your back, I thought it would be better if I approached you directly and offered you my co-operation in overcoming these problems. So, here's a first (incomplete) list of observations:

  • Weniamon Document: This might actually become a very interesting article, but at the moment it totally lacks sources and also some crucial information: When was it written? By whom? In what language? On what medium? Where was it found? When? By whom? Who analysed it and described its importance? What is it named after? - Also, I cannot find a single independent Google attestation to this item.
  • Joseph E. Yahuda: I've already rewritten this article a bit, but I'm not at all certain if it hadn't better be deleted instead. I'm positively certain this is a crackpot theory. And I cannot at the moment find much evidence that it ever had any notable impact. If it did, then the article may stay but must be worded in accordance with the usual policies about fringe theories. If not, I'd vote for deletion.
  • The next three are certainly much better, as they are doubtless notable, legitimate topics, and there is much solid content (although I wouldn't agree with everything in them). But they all cite only unreliable external websites and no proper reliable printed sources. I'm sure you were actually working from some decent books when writing them, so could you please just start adding the references? This applies to:

I'm sorry to have to be so critical - I hope you'll understand though. I might go on with some more articles later. Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of my Articles

I am glad that you took time out of your busy schedule to update some of the articles I created. Thank you. As for your offer, it sounds enticing. Truly it does. However, there are some conditions that you will need to uphold if you want my full cooperation. Other than that, I am sure everything will be just fine. If you are interested in hearing these conditions (trust me, there are not that many and are actually quite reasonable) then leave a message in my discussion page. If not, then take care and enjoy your "stalking" campaigns upon me. Over and out. - Deucalionite 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, I'm curious to hear your ideas. By the way, be assured I do not "enjoy" stalking campgains :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Conditions

Oule, Ave and Hello. These conditions are not in any way oriented on making you feel as if I am imposing my will upon you. Also, these conditions are not meant to offend you in any way. These are just simple rules of conduct.

Here are some rudimentary conditions:

1) I read that little message you left in Aldux's discussion page. For the love of God, please do not pity me just because I possess a mentality that does not conform to your version of what a "mainstream" mentality is supposed to be. If anything, it hints at a bit of arrogance (even if you proclaim honestly that you are not arrogant).

2) Please do not deem everything I write as nothing else but "crackpot" theories. I usually double-check on my work to make sure that an article’s content is valid (even if it is deemed "fringy" by "mainstream" thinkers). To prove my case, please look at the Aleksandra Wasowicz article when it was first written by me (Hint: the name used to be "Alexandra Voskowitz").

3) I need for you to be patient in your demands for sources. I do not tolerate impatience from people who delete content without giving a certain grace period for sources to be implemented. I do not care if a "fellow editor" has to wait until Cerberus vomits rice pudding into Hades' helmet. If you cannot stand the notion of waiting, then ask someone to help you or contact me to conduct joint ventures in seeking sources.

4) If you are going to mock me, then do it in a witty fashion. At least show some intelligence if you feel that you need to deride me for whatever reason you might have. However, I’d much prefer that mockery not be used when discussing about serious academic issues.

5) If you disagree with something I wrote, then bring your grievances immediately to me and I will see what I can do. Be honest and do not be afraid to point out things that may seem "fringy" to you. Just as long as you help me expand an article or verify/denounce its content. Also, please provide good reasons if you need to remove content that I placed. If your reasons are as short-sighted as Aldux’s statements of "crap", then it is best you execute a 180 degree sea change and leave me be.

6) Go ahead and utilize 3RR against me if you think it is for the best. However, heated debates of intellectual caliber should not be disrupted just because a band of "mainstream" thinkers cannot take the time to discuss with someone who they think is "fringy." Terms such as "mainstream", "fringy", and "objectivity" are just plain capricious. These clichéd concepts should be transcended by concepts entailing academic honesty, academic accountability, academic amnesty to those who admit to making mistakes, research, flexible analysis, understanding of the interrelations between a social context and a social event, and protection of sociological truth (and not ideological "Truth", which is, more often than not, false unless proven otherwise). From such concepts only then can one achieve true "neutrality". I am not a very good philosopher (nor do I try to be one), but I know for a fact that academia is not as apolitical or as "objective" as some would assume.

7) Please do not support those users in Wikipedia who utilize the "I have a diploma, therefore I am god" argument in academic discussions. Even though I am skeptical as to whether such an exact argument will ever be used, it is always good to take this possibility into consideration. Simply put, diplomas are fancy pieces of paper with fancy ink. Just because a person has a Bachelor’s Degree or a Master’s Degree and another person has a Ph.D does not mean that the person with the Ph.D has academic/intellectual superiority. Granted, citing Ph.D scholars to validate an article's content is helpful. However, never forget that each scholar (for the most part) has an axe to grind and everyone has a bias (that, my friend is a sociological fact). So then how do you determine the reliability of an academic's work? Reliability in a person’s academic work should be directly proportional to the reliable character of the person. In other words, if a person’s character entails being a complete ass (pardon for the profanity), then diplomas really don’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things. This is a simple fact of life whether diploma-wielding scholars believe it or not.

8) Like everyone else, I make mistakes (surprise, surprise). If I make a mistake, do not rub it in my face. Just state it once (or twice if I fail to notice it) and critique it in an erudite and respectful manner.

9) If I myself fail to uphold any of these conditions (or offend you deliberately/inadvertently), then I expect you to calmly and respectfully tell me. From then on, I will apologize. If I do not apologize, then ask for an apology respectfully. If I am stubborn (a Greek trait no doubt) and still do not apologize, then simply state "I hope you feel better my friend. Keep in touch whenever you can." Trust me. A phrase like that is a lot better than, "Go defenistrate yourself into a pool of leeches you pig-headed corpulent pus-drinking moron." Or something along those lines.

These are basically my conditions. I am sure you can uphold them and feel free to tell me what you think of these conditions and provide me with your own. Just so you know, I am taking a little vacation time. Feel free to check out the articles I wrote and make any corrections or updates you feel are necessary. Just please do not delete any of my articles without first talking to me. For instance, the Weniamon Document article is definitely unsourced and could pass for something entirely "fringy". However, I am not giving up on that article until I search for other sources or acquire help from others who are willing enough to conclusively validate or denounce the article's content.

During my time away, don't be afraid to ask others to provide sources to help validate the content currently found in the Sfakians, Souliotes, and Maniots articles. Just so you know, many Albanian contributors have tried to make the Souliotes into ethnic Albanians when the Souliotes actually had a Greek ethnic consciousness irrespective of whatever language they spoke. As I have said a million times before, language does not determine ethnicity. This might have been the case thousands and thousands of years ago when languages first developed, but this definitely changed by Ottoman times. That much is a sociological fact. I do recommend that you ask MATIA for sources to help validate the contents of the Souliotes article. I consider MATIA a reliable and very respectful user. You will have no problems getting help. If you'd rather want me to find sources, then just be patient until my vacation time is over.

In the end, I honorably accept your offer. I know this message is quite long, but respond whenever you can. Take care. Over and out. Deucalionite 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, about patience, I have no problem. I'll just let you know from time to time if I find some particular gap in sourcing that you could close. As for other things - well, about the "fringiness" issue I think we'll have to disagree. We do operate with concepts like "mainstream" and "fringe" here on Wikipedia, it's actually enshrined in the very policies of WP:NOR and WP:V. So, we can't really avoid judging subjects in those terms. But I can promise I won't initiate article deletions on that ground without consulting you first, if you are concerned about that. - In short, you see, I too have my "conditions", and the most important of them is that I need to know you're aware of and accept the relevant common policies, especially WP:NOR. And the rule that, as a matter of principle, the burden of providing references lies with whoever wants to introduce a point. If we can agree on that, we'll be fine working together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Re. Weniamon Document, I now found there already was a much better article on Story of Wenamun, which I suppose must be the same item, although the contents described there do not fit yours exactly. I can otherwise find no indication of the existence of anything "Weniamon", I've redirected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestion

I put Paul Faure and Elias Tsatsomoiros on my watchlist. I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be reporting what these guys say as "fact" :) Thanks for the barnstar btw :)) - FrancisTyers 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, I hadn't even come as far as those two guys. Thanks for notifying me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grecoreport sources

Me again. Sorry about this new blow, Deucalionite, but I've now begun to look into how much of your material was sourced to one particular website, "grecoreport". I find that this website is not only "fringy" in its claims, but also factually inaccurate to an alarming degree. Just a few random examples of blatant errors:

  • Claims that William Jones believed that Sanskrit was "the mother tongue of all European languages" (he didn't).
  • Distorts name of Polish archaeologist Aleksandra Wasowicz as "Alexandra Voskowitz" (you noticed that yourself)
  • Misspells name of French archaeologist Paul Faure as "Paul Fore"
  • Cites a paper by Faure in a journal called Nestor. There is no such journal; Nestor is only a bibliographical database, it doesn't publish papers [1].
  • Cites findings of an Archanthropus Europeanus Petraloniensis dated to c. "700,000 to 250,000 B.C.", but blames unnamed other researchers for claiming these are "African in origin of the anthropoid "Lucy" type" (but Lucy, the Australopithecus afarensis, lived 4-3 million years before the present!). Then it claims there was a Homo erectus find dated to "11,000,000 years B.C.", but erectus lived only 2-1 million years ago!

I could go on and on about this - of all the references quoted in those papers, almost every single one I've tried to check was either distorted, unverifiable, or downright wrong. So, the unfortunate upshot of it all is: We should - literally! - not believe a single word of what that site says. Including wherever it purports to be reporting on other, respectable scholars.

I know this is hard on you, because you've put in a lot of work creating articles based on that site. But I'm now determined that every single statement based only on grecoreport will be removed from Wikipedia. Some of the articles can be salvaged as their topics (though often not their specific contents) can be substantiated from other sources. I'll proceed slowly to give you time to find alternative verification for some of the material, and of course you are free to reintroduce things once you've found such, but please expect some rather ruthless purging to take place.

Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purging Campaigns

Back from vacation (wish it would have lasted longer). Anyway, it seems you have been busy conducting ruthless purging campaigns upon the articles I have created. Having fun? By the way, nice job clarifying the Weniamon Document for me. That just saved me a lot of trouble in terms of conducting exhausting research.

You stated the following:

I could go on and on about this - of all the references quoted in those papers, almost every single one I've tried to check was either distorted, unverifiable, or downright wrong. So, the unfortunate upshot of it all is: We should - literally! - not believe a single word of what that site says. Including wherever it purports to be reporting on other, respectable scholars.

I know this is hard on you, because you've put in a lot of work creating articles based on that site. But I'm now determined that every single statement based only on grecoreport will be removed from Wikipedia. Some of the articles can be salvaged as their topics (though often not their specific contents) can be substantiated from other sources. I'll proceed slowly to give you time to find alternative verification for some of the material, and of course you are free to reintroduce things once you've found such, but please expect some rather ruthless purging to take place.

It is fine if you disagree with the contents shown on the Greco Report (about time somebody did; makes for interesting conversation). However, that website is interesting in the sense that it provides me with many informational "tidbits" (i.e. academics whose names are not widely known in Wikipedia). So, from that website I implement filtering techniques (quite lackluster these days) in order to see what I could extract from the website. From there, I conduct research to see if other sources are available to help verify the articles I am writing. Other than that, the Greco Report (having stated that it will update itself) is an interesting website even if its information is dubious from time to time. Then again, I have seen things that were deemed "objective" by "mainstream" academia and were in fact quite the opposite.

These ruthless purging campaigns (i.e. fire arrows, Greek Fire, Roman salt on Carthaginian lands, etc.) are absolutely fascinating. I am sure you, Macrakis and whoever else involved are having a good time. To see my articles being torn asunder does show the various layers and dynamics of cognitive dissonance existent within the minds of both "mainstream" and "fringy" academics (or not depending on interpretation). Please continue.

In all seriousness, this is not a difficult ordeal for me to overcome. I really never considered this to be a difficult ordeal in the first place. Social reality dictates that I have been criticized (dare I say discriminated) for quite a while. So, your purging campaigns really aren't doing much to the articles I have created other than transmogrify them into more "wikified" entities. One day, I am sure, I will be able to implement more information to the stubs I have created. For the time being, however, I just want to continue creating more articles. The more people on the Internet know about the "Αόρατοι", the better. Over and out. Deucalionite 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stradioti

Thanks for creating Stradioti - nice topic, for sure. I just wondered about the wording towards the end: "adopted by this paper [...] make this writer favor". That sounds very much as if it was taken over verbatim from some article - we don't usually talk about ourselves as "authors" of articles here in Wikipedia, let alone about what we "prefer". If you inadvertently took it over from somewhere, you might want to rewrite it, both for encyclopedic style and possibly also for reasons of copyright concerns. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About Cymaeans, could you check your sources which place is actually meant here? Is it the city "Cyme"/"Cuma" in Euboea (which already has an article at Cuma), or the homonymous colony Cyme (Aeolis) in Mysia (which lacks an article)? You might want to consider if the article could, in the first case, be merged, or in the second case be moved to the city name - "Cymaeans" seem to have been not so much a "tribe" but the inhabitants of the eponymous polis, don't they? See also Cyme, which is currently a disambiguation page, and Cumae, which is yet another related colony, in Italy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leave Me Be

I recommend that you leave me be. The agreement we made is currently null and void. Your actions on the Arvanites discussion page where you deemed my sociological statements (with a hint of sarcasm) as part of some trolling campaign were offensive. I do not expect you or anyone to think the way I do, but your blindness to social reality is completely unnecessary (Hint: history and life in general are not based only on languages).

Let me create and edit articles in peace. You are now dishonorably discharged from your duties as per the now null agreement. I got the impression from the discussion page that you don't much care about what I state or what information I might have (i.e. sources, journals, etc.) to help enhance the quality of the article. When you implicitly consider an erudite sociologist a troll, then there is something wrong with you. Period. Jokes are jokes. Sarcasm is sarcasm. Both completely understandable. However, I am not a troll by trade or by creed. End of story.

A simple principle entails never marginalizing people who think uniquely/flexibly (within a rational context) and may have something that could help people better understand certain things. You did not follow that "invisible rule" when you placed my statements in the trolling section as if I were a troll from the beginning. Our collaboration before this point was interesting. However, now I suggest you leave me be and find someone else to work with. Your presence in my territorium (i.e. my discussion page) is not welcome anymore. Good day. Deucalionite 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will continue to watch your work for what needs cleanup. If you think that's inappropriate, sue me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that it was inappropriate for you to watch my work. Suing you? You just don't get it. Deucalionite 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The page you bought up

Has been speedily deleted in line with WP:COPYVIO:

Blatant copyright infringements of commercial sources may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (engaged in directly making money off the content) and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

- FrancisTyers · 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that says commercial, this doesn't seem to be commercial. *swiftly backpeddals* - FrancisTyers · 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stalking

some problem users need watching; that's not wikistalking, it's the WP equivalent of bing on taking-out-the-trash duty. An RfC seems like a good idea in this case. dab (ᛏ) 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

  • I'll ignore your repeated personal attacks against me for the time being. But don't push it. "Dishonorable" used once is bad enough. Don't make it a habit.
  • You're not supposed to remove copyvio tags. They are there for a reason. Uploading copyrighted material is blockable.
  • I do not enjoy "stalking" you. I'm trying to clean up a mess, and I've tried to be as polite as possible. If you feel I'm acting improperly, the reasonable thing for both of us as civilized wikipedians is to let the community judge our behaviour. I'll continue doing what I feel must be done until the community tells me to stop. This place is supposed to be run on the basis of community consensus, remember? I offer to submit an RfC about myself any time, but it would be better if we did it together because comments will obviously be about both of us. Let me know if you're prepared to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Furies

I'll ignore your repeated personal attacks against me for the time being. But don't push it. "Dishonorable" used once is bad enough. Don't make it a habit.

You fail to remember that your implying that I was a troll (or that I was trolling) on the Arvanites discussion page was what made me want to eliminate the agreement we had earlier. Collaboration does not entail treating a fellow partner as if he/she were dead weight with contributions that you think are useless and "trollish". If you cannot take my statements in a discussion page seriously, then how do you expect me to trust you with serious academic work pertaining to content on an article? When I state something that has meaning (irrespective of whether I use sarcasm or not), I do so in order to make people think about an issue more flexibly. Guess what? That includes you.

You're not supposed to remove copyvio tags. They are there for a reason. Uploading copyrighted material is blockable.

Then explain to me why the articles I have written did not immediately acquire copyvio tags? Were they somehow invisible to the Wikipedia community? Did I somehow implement a cloaking device to prevent my articles from being scrutinized? I made improvements on those articles as best as I could and I encouraged people to help me. Putting a big useless sign is not helping. It is a hindrance because it prevents me from seeing what new corrections/improvements have been made on an article so that I can make the article better. Not only that, but anyone can put one of those signs if they feel that a certain article is not "good enough" or unworthy of "Wikipedia standards".

I do not enjoy "stalking" you. I'm trying to clean up a mess, and I've tried to be as polite as possible. If you feel I'm acting improperly, the reasonable thing for both of us as civilized wikipedians is to let the community judge our behaviour. I'll continue doing what I feel must be done until the community tells me to stop. This place is supposed to be run on the basis of community consensus, remember? I offer to submit an RfC about myself any time, but it would be better if we did it together because comments will obviously be about both of us. Let me know if you're prepared to do that.

I wish I could believe you. Truly I do. However, there are certain things you need to acknowledge before I can trust you again. Also, are you implying that the articles I have written and researched about are just one big mess to you? How nice. Good to know that I am being "appreciated" for my hard work. Thank you for your "politeness."

Community consensus? If a member of the Wikipedia community or a group in the community ever had a problem with one of my articles, I would immediately rectify my mistakes. I would not scream, I would not yell. In an honorable manner, I would confront whatever problems my articles have. If I am unable to correct my mistakes, then I would expect others to provide the necessary corrections.

RfC? If you want me to help you, then you know what you have to do if you want to regain my trust. Otherwise, leave me be. Just so you know, I did not want this argument to happen. I am not fond of arguing needlessly for there is work to be done and articles to create. I hate being hindered uselessly. That is why I told you to leave me be so that you could avoid this kind of argument. However, no one takes my statements seriously. No matter how rational they may be or how many good intentions they may have. Over and out. Deucalionite 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One more try...

Okay, taking this here because it really is too much for the AfD page.

I do apologize if I offended you in the Arvanites discussion. However, fact is, the passages in the article I reverted with that "nonsense" summary in fact were full of very blatant errors. It would have taken far too long in the context of the heated debate at the time to point them out one by one. Sorry, but a summary revert was the only thing I felt I could do. I could still explain what I found wrong about them some other day when we're both more relaxed.

You then immediately started calling me "dishonorable". That was before I removed the threads from the talk page.

That removal was not so much targetted specifically against your contributions, it was the contexts of the whole two threads that made them utterly unhelpful for the progress of the real debate there.

Back to our "agreement" - I'm afraid that agreement never was such a big thing to begin with. I had approached you politely, and you had answered with a rather long-winded rant full of innuendo and defiance. And I never saw in your subsequent acts any serious will on your part to contribute constructively to the cleanup. What was that agreement supposed to be? That I would be doing the hard dirty work of tidying up your unsourced sloppy stuff, and you would generously allow me to do it and insult me only moderately in return? A nice deal indeed. I would have appreciated if you had made some effort at actually providing some of the missing sources. What about you making some effort at winning back lost trust for a change?

Well, I do appreciate that you've made some effort in your most recent new articles to work better with sources - the Blemmydes one is actually pretty decent. In the Sclaveni one I'm still waiting for an explanation of the passage I marked. I could bet it's copied from somewhere, and by that time you surely should have known better than to do that.

As for the rest of what I did, the {copyvio} tags were sadly necessary, that's just the way Wikipedia works. I could have done this sooner or later, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. By the way, the tags don't hinder you from simply rewriting the articles in a clean way on a new page - now or later. Just as you could have done any time earlier. Just as you did with the Stradioti, which is also now moving nicely towards a decent article.

As for the AfD, I was acting on my understanding what the consensual criteria for notability are - and you see in the reactions of the other voters that I was right in my assessment. You are of course free to disagree with that consensus (the "notability" guidelines are not an official policy like NPOV or NOR), but you'll just have to accept the consensus. Sooner or later somebody else would have proposed these, I'm sure.

So much for what happened up to now. How to move on from here? I'm afraid the cleanup will have to go through, this way or the other. You won't solve this problem by calling me names and telling me to leave you alone, because I won't. I will continue doing what I think needs to be done until somebody else relieves me of the task, or some other people whose judgment I respect tell me to stop. You could certainly make it a nicer experience if you gave me a signal that you are willing to participate constructively. How about making a small pause creating new articles, and instead invest some serious work in cleaning up the old ones? You could start with the missing sources for the Sclaveni. Or trying to help me sort out the Cuma mess (that's not a mess you created, to be sure, your new article just fell into already muddy ground). Or doing some research about the geographical and historical context of the Zanj and Kilwa empires? (Right now the articles don't even state where those places are!) Or trying to find out more about the work of the scholars in the biographical articles, other than the isolated factoids you created the articles on? (Like Valerios Stais or Keramopoulos or Carsten Høeg, each of whom has a scholarly career far greater than the issues you wrote about. It's actually doing these guys a grave injustice having articles that reduce them to this single event as if that had been all they had done, and to have such an incomplete article on WP for a long time is, in my view, much worse than having none at all.)

Well, anyway, this is getting far too long now... Take a deep breath and think about it. You'll have to put up with me being around over your work, so maybe you'd better try playing nice with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Far, So "Adequate"

Apology noted (about time). Keep in mind that you need to get a few things clarified. First, the "errors" I made on the Arvanites discussion page were not erroneous in the least bit. The Gasmules did exist and the term "Arvanitis" does have Greek etymological roots (regardless if the language Arvanitika is considered a form of Albanian; technically, it is Greco-Albanian). The reason you consider these as "errors" is because you follow by a different linguistic paradigm (didn't see a social paradigm though; work on one). The point is that the statements I made should have been left alone in the discussion page (erroneous or otherwise). Next time I make a serious statement (with or without sarcasm), leave it alone. Respond to it if you want to or don't. Second, I called you dishonorable after you removed the statements I made in the Arvanites article (this happened after we made our agreement to work together). I do not call people "dishonorable" for no reason. I have scruples too you know.

In my discussion page, you were the one who asked politely to work with me. This is the starting point in the development of a social contract. I told you that I have certain conditions that you needed to follow if you wanted my cooperation. You obliged. I gave you a long list of conditions. To you, they were long-winded innuendos and rants, but if you didn't like the conditions I have set, then why in God's name did you not reject them?

What was that agreement supposed to be? That I would be doing the hard dirty work of tidying up your unsourced sloppy stuff, and you would generously allow me to do it and insult me only moderately in return? A nice deal indeed. I would have appreciated if you had made some effort at actually providing some of the missing sources. What about you making some effort at winning back lost trust for a change?

There you go assuming that I wronged you with the agreement. I agreed to the agreement with you only because I assumed you did not disagree, for the most part, with the conditions I gave you. Moreover, you seemed to be a sensible person who understood where I was coming from. Boy, was I wrong. The misinformed comments you just made in the above paragraph is another reason why I don't take you seriously. This is why I am ready once more to slam the door in your face and continue calling you "dishonorable." But because I have work to do (with or without your "help"), I want to end this and never have to waste my time explaining to you anything.

You want to know the truth? I do not expect others to do my work for me. Period. End of story. Don't go looking for fickle "interpretations." If you don't like "cleaning up after me", then don't do it. Ask someone else to do it or ask me to do it or just leave the article alone until I am able to clean it at a future time. Simple. I allowed you to "clean up" my articles because I assumed you would be of the collaborative sort whereby you would ask me questions on the discussion page and I would ask if you could help me with sources, etc. etc. That is how true collaboration works. You don't do work and complain about it later when you have not discussed with your collaborators about what you, specifically, want to do (or what sources you have that you could share with your partners).

You want me to make an effort at winning back lost trust? You extended your hand and I shook it. The ball is in your field my friend. Don't try to play games with me when it comes to trust. Either you take a pact seriously and discuss honestly your conditions, or don't. Either way, I am fully aware of the concept of trust. I keep my word as best as I can and if I make a mistake I try my hardest to rectify it. You think it's easy to correct one's mistakes knowing full well that you do not have that many resources at your disposal? I try my hardest. Really I do. Research databases that I can access do not provide me with the specific sources I need to conduct research. In a nutshell, it stinks knowing you don't have enough to finish the job. I have a plethora of sources, but the ones I need for specific topics I can never seem to get a hold of. This is Fate having its way with me.

The Blemmydes article is fine. However, I do expect a copyvio tag to be placed on it one of these days. I want someone to spare me the waiting and just put one big useless sign on the article. Just to get the ritual over with. As for the Sclaveni article, do as you wish. If you think the content is copied, then believe whatever you want. If you think magical fairies wrote the article, then believe whatever you want. In general, the copyvio tags were not necessary, because you could have told me, "Deucalionite, one of the external links in one of your articles violates Wikipedia policy. Remove it and change the article or someone (including myself) will place a copyvio tag." That is what honorable people do. They inform their collaborators and help them before taking any drastic measures. Simple. Do I have to spell out everything for you?

The Stratioti article is fine (for now). Is it "notable" enough for you? About the AfD. Again, you could have informed me prior to nominating certain articles for deletion. Here's an idea. Why couldn't you summon someone to talk to me about the whole AfD thing so that I could think about it before anything was done? Again, your definition of "collaboration" entails "I do all of the work and follow Wikipedia policy as if I am an automaton." No. No. No. You really, truly, honestly, and genuinely need to brush up on your social politics. Otherwise, both of us will end up arguing until the end of time. So get started if you want me to "play nice."

I am sorry if you had to tolerate the Furies that I unleashed upon you on many occassions. However, knowledge is not judged nor seen through Wikipedian policies only. I hope and pray that you take some of the advice I left in this message and maybe our differences can end up as "water under the bridge." Your call. If I were you, I'd make a good call if you are going to put up with me. Deucalionite 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Okay, here's my proposal for a renewed "agreement".

  • I will again untertake not to AfD articles without prior consultation (as I would have done had you not repelled the old arrangement)
  • As for any more copyvio problems, I should not have to warn you - you ought to have known better before creating these anyway, at least since the first "stradioti" version was deleted and you re-created it. You already know better than me where these problems are. Instead of me having to search through all your stuff, how about you just tell me yourself if there are any others, and then we can simply agree on a timeframe for rewriting them together?
  • I expect some sign of willingness for constructive collaboration on your part. As for the Sclaveni page, please just tell me the title of the book you have the contents of that passage from. That's not asking a lot, is it? It must be a single title, don't tell me you condensed and synthesised that text from multiple sources yourself.
  • No more new articles unless they are properly sourced and put in context from the start. Please do the research first, then upload. If you have problems finding information, don't hesitate to ask me for help, I've got access to a good research library.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why??

Deucalionite, you did it again. Will you never learn? Are you doing this on purpose?

I am still waiting for the source to Sclaveni. And now you created Panagiotis Danglis. It's again unsourced, and it again has "copyvio" written all over it. I don't know from what source you took it, but it's probably the same source these schoolkids here were using: [2].

This can't go on, and to drive home the point I'm afraid I'll have to step up the pressure a bit. I expect, at the very least, that you will name your sources to these two articles until tomorrow, so they can then be rewritten in a decent way. (Both are good topics, of course.) Otherwise, Danglis will be deleted and the Sclaveni stubbed back to the bare bones. I'm also prepared to submit an RfC and, if that shouldn't help, an Arbcom request. In the latter case, the objective would be to effectively ban you from creating articles except under strict conditions.

Arbcom would of course also learn about your two little attempts at sockpuppetry and your personal attacks.

To keep you informed of what I'm up to, I've created a list of comments about your articles at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Deucalionite. Last time I forgot to AfD Philippos Chatzaridis; unless you have some good grounds for keeping him (other than the arguments you proposed in the last round, which failed to convince anybody), I guess the same fate as Christos Sariannidis will await him.

We can still do all this the nice way, but take this as a last warning please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And another unsourced one (Theodore Spyropoulos), created right after this message above in willful defiance of all warnings. I take this as a final statement that you are not willing to listen and have no interest in becoming a constructive member of this community. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simmer Down

This will probably be the last time I have to explain things to you. Quite frankly, your terrible assumptions and unnecessary behavior have only convinced me further that I cannot take you seriously.

Will I ever learn what? What is this moral lesson of yours that you are supposed to teach me? Is it a lesson in collaboration? Too late, I already learned that lesson many many years ago. Is it a lesson in compromise? Learned about it in grade school. You are not my mentor. You are a pushy and impatient person with nothing else better to do. Face the facts whether you consider these statements as personal attacks or not. Besides, I learn lessons from people who actually care and are not bossy.

The article I created, Panagiotis Danglis, was not meant to frustrate you in the least bit. Like I said, I create articles because I love contributing things that people have never heard about in Wikipedia. Literally, the thought of upsetting you never crossed my mind when I wrote the Panagiotis Danglis article. So, take your "you did this on purpose" rhetoric and shove it. Also, go ahead and place a copyvio tag on the Panagiotis Danglis article. You are not really accomplishing anything except frustrating yourself. I don't care if the source for the article is based off of material that schoolkids use. Again, you are only causing yourself needless grief.

Are you upset because I did not provide sources for the Sclaveni article? You really need to do something else with your time. Chasing me down really will not prove anything to anyone except that you are a wikistalker. No, I did not deliberately forget to put in sources. In fact, I have terrible short-term memory and I usually remember to do things if I am interested. If I lose interest in something, then I go off and do something else.

Sockpuppetry? No. There you go off once again making assumptions without actually understanding where I come from. On my userpage, I clearly state that I am a sociologist by trade. The "two little attempts" I made were all part of a sociological experiement pertaining to the dynamics of the inhibition effect on users who create multiple personalities and different identities for themselves. In fact, I have been conducting these kinds of experiments on the Internet for quite a while. If you do not understand the sociological mindset, then don't bother trying to understand. Keep your assumptions and comments to yourself.

If you want to delete the Phillippos Chatzaridis article, then go ahead. It will only reinforce the fact that Wikipedia only cares about articles with "glitter and glamor" and articles that are not "good enough" for certain Wikipedian tastes.

Theodore Spyropoulos is another article I wrote. Big deal. Unsourced? Be patient. I told you before to be patient. Patience requires one to wait a while. This is not McDonald's and I am not here to take your order. You still need to brush up on your social politics. You are pushy. You are impatient. You assume too much. You demand too much. You need to relax and stop frustrating yourself. You have frustrated me and eventually I realized that getting upset over nothing really does not accomplish anything. Social reality dictates that Wikipedia does not respect people with unique mentalities and it sends out henchmen who are anal-retentive in everything they do.

Ah, my willful sense of defiance. If you were smart, you would have realized that stubborness is a Greek trait. I told you this before, but you never seem to read everything I write. Your problem, not mine. By the way, I recommend you spare yourself the nonsensical comments about how I am a non-constructive member of the community. Believe me, if I wanted to be destructive, then I would have been destructive since the day I entered Wikipedia.

As far as I am concerned, I really don't care what you do at this point. The more you misbehave by being pushy (and intervening every time whenever I am talking to a specific user) and the more you utilize petty rhetoric where you assume too much, then the more "defiant" I become. Simple social politics. Cause and effect. Beginning and end. Start and finish. These concepts are not that difficult to understand. I do not care if you misconstrue what I have stated in this message as personal attacks.

I will see what I can do about the articles I created and sure enough one of these days I will provide the sources for the Sclaveni article. I do not guarantee you when exactly I will fix the articles I created. However, if you are sensible, then you will realize that this is not a perfect world. Being pushy every waking moment does not increase efficiency. It does the opposite if you haven't realized it by now. Do what you want and keep your nonsense to yourself.

In a last attempt to help a "fellow Wikipedian", I will give you some advice. Do yourself a favor and go ask a sociologically-minded editor who is not a wikistalker to help me with the articles I wrote. If you cannot stand the notion of having users become "free radicals" on Wikipedia, then send a calm, respectful, honorable, and patient editor who possesses a sociological mentality. I know that such people actually exist. Where and who they are is beyond me. If I were you, I'd take this advice, breathe a sigh of relief, and relax. Over and out. Deucalionite 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/t/User_talk%7EFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise_Deucalionite_05bb.html"