User talk:Elysonius

Welcome!

Hello, Elysonius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! M.K. 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do my best to be as helpful as possible. Elysonius 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Pellizzari[edit]

Thank you for the modifications you made on that page. I am kind of new to the site and don't know all the things to do to make the page look its best, so I am glad there are people up there to make things better ^^

Thanks again, --Winry5 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Elysonius 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Ascoli Satriano.[edit]

Have you got a message for you from Ascoli Satriano (Italy)? Naw we can to build a cultural bridge betwen Ascoli Satriano and United State of America.Look below:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascoli_Satriano

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Rosario_Coluccelli

Awaiting your early reply,accept my most cordial greetings --87.18.199.139 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Coluccelli Prof. of History E-mail:rosario.coluccelli@tiscali.it

Illyrians[edit]

Your edits to the Illyrian article were poor. Perging whole chunks of text does not qualify as a 'minor' edit. If you wish to edit the article, you must first discuss this on the forum. Secondly you must provide source material or you will simply reverted. You should stick to editing subjects you actually have knowledge about Thanks Hxseek 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse Hxseek's incivility. You may want to report Hxseek to WP:WQA or take other action as described in WP:DR.

As for your edits to Illyrians, I agree with the revert, though I'm still trying to make sense of what Hxseek actually reverted (I'll probably undo some of what he did once figure what he was trying to do).

There has been a great deal of discussion on the talk page about the section that you heavily edited. Please review past discussions and make some contribution there that at least indicate why you're suggesting these changes in light of the past discussions. Thanks. --Ronz 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disappoint you Hxseek, but I actually do know a lot about ancient cultures, civilizations, and tribes. Therefore, your argument that I should only edit articles I have knowledge about is actually reinforcing my position. Besides, you failed to even notice that the changes I made on the Illyrians article entailed reorganizing the content so that the article is both readable and easy to navigate. Moreover, there are portions of the article that are unsourced not to mention the lack of proper mechanics in the overall sentence structures of each paragraph written (i.e. the word "the" is rarely used in many of the sentences).

Ronz, I do not have time to waste reporting Hxseek to anyone since I find that all users tend to have their "barbaric moments." Anyway, the edits I made were part of a two-phase plan meant to help the Illyrians article overcome its backward and disorganized state. The first phase (currently reverted by Hxseek) entailed implementing corrections in grammar, mechanics, spelling, etc. while reorganizing everything without significantly affecting the extant content on the article. The second phase entailed adding extra sourced content in order to help expand the article.

Since both you did not read the edits I made or took the time to actually collaborate with me in order to find ways towards enhancing the article, I have decided to withhold my sources and plans to expand the article's content. I will not interfere in the "sensitive" discussion politics surrounding the Illyrians article since there is much work to be done elsewhere. I hate to say this, but if both of you failed to see the good intentions of my edits, then I am afraid the article will remain in a backward and disorganized state for a very long time. If, by any chance, that both of you believe that the points I have made so far are all unfounded, then there is really not much of a chance for the Illyrians article to improve significantly.

Have a nice day gentlemen. Goodbye. Elysonius 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Illyrians[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions in Talk:Illyrians. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Illyrians is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head despite others' inability to do so. [1] --Ronz 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry[edit]

Mr Elysonius if you were offended by my suggestion, that was not my intention. I was merely stating that a nicety would be to discuss on the forum before carrying out a massive edit of the entire article. Otherwise I agree with what you say. THe introduction is too long and verbose, whilst the main 'body' of the article is totally deficient. I tried adding simple, uncotroversial material about Illyrian life during Roman times, etc, trade and war, but unfortunatley my edits were deleted by Mr Ronz, who has appointed himself as the policeman of this (and several other) articles. Please feel free to add your input. I will be more than happy to forum with you Hxseek 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let's just get back to further improving and expanding the Illyrians article. Elysonius 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie's choice not a Hobson's choice example[edit]

It seems to me rather obvious that it isn't, and even the deleted paragraph acknowledges it is a "hard" choice. Hobson's choices are, by definition, easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.6.69 (talk) 10:59, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Elysonius 14:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful.[edit]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Albania. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--Taulant23 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Taulant23, Elysonius's edits were very constructive. The only thing that was deleted was the Pelasgians section (and the dead link image of Belushi from Animal House). You have failed to provide sources and have not discussed your reasons for reverting the Albania article. Deucalionite 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian controversy[edit]

I have received your message, left a message on Taulant's page, and will continue to monitor the situation. Academic Challenger 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Delphi[edit]

The article Delphi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Delphi for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Delphi[edit]

The article Delphi you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Delphi for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Waited a bit to see if issues could be addressed, but now must fail article. One major citaiton is no longer on the internet, leaving several sections without references.SriMesh | talk 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgians[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I completed a peer review for your article, the Pelasgians. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the Greeks (Pelasgians)[edit]

Happy holidays to you too and sorry about the brashness. I'm not sure if the name deserves its own section, perhaps a mention could be made in the opening section? That being said, I'm not really opposed to including it as long as their uncertain affiliation is stated (ie were they greek-speakers from the 'beginning', so to speak? Were they hellenized later? Were they even a uniform 'people' or an umbrella term?). 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand my friend. Here is a suggestion. How about writing a topic sentence for the "Pelasgians" section mentioning the fact that the term "Pelasgian" directly meant "Greek" in accordance to the majority of both ancient Greek and Roman sources? Afterwards, we add a sentence or two discussing the fact that ancient references to the Pelasgians were multifaceted (i.e. Ovid and Herodotus utilize the term "Pelasgian" in a generalizing format to describe all Greeks whereas Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassus utilize the term "Pelasgian" in a specialist format describing specific Greek nations/tribes).

There is no doubt, in accordance to both literary and archaeological evidence, that the Pelasgians were Greek. However, by following through with the above suggestions, I believe both of us can succeed in describing the fact that the term "Pelasgian" (much like the term "Graikoi") was applied to both all Greeks and specific Greek tribes spread out across the Helladic mainland.

I hope that my suggestions are helpful. If not, then please respond at your best convenience. Thank you for your cooperation my friend. Elysonius (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the section, please take a look and tell me if you're ok with it, as well. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more lines. If you don't think they should be there, feel free to remove; the section is getting a bit too big, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapodistrias Museum[edit]

Thank you very much for the nomination of the article for the main page DYK and your edits. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Elysonius (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pausanias[edit]

pausanias Megistias (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deucalionite for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgians[edit]

Dear Elysonius I was advised to talk to you about the Pelasgians article. I wrote some of my thoughts concerning the arcaeological evidence section and I would appreciate some feedback on the points I raised. All the best--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable.[edit]

I've just been emailed by Deucalionite about this block. I am thankful that he defended me while I was busy working in New York. It's too bad I was unable to provide my side of the story here.

Anyway, I don't care if I am blocked just because some users believe that I am Deucalionite. I will still use my talkpage just to prove that I am someone else. If I can use my talkpage to help other users improve articles, then at least I will not be completely useless to the Wikipedia community.

The block placed on my account is based on inconclusive evidence. Deucalionite is my mentor and I do follow his advice. Months ago, I emailed him asking for help since I was a newbie and did not have a full grasp of Wikipedia policies. He and I created a cooperation plan whereby we would work together to improve articles. Of course, this was established after weeks of constant debating. Our sense of cooperation is based on an "active duty" structure. Deucalionite edits, emails me to tell me that he is finished for the day, and I take his place while he is away. When I finish editing, I email Deucalionite and tell him to take my place while I am gone. We do this to help each other out and increase our work input in half the time.

I really don't care what anyone says. Deucalionite was (and still is) the only user who gave a shit about my purpose here to improve articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean to be snappy, but I think the evidence indicating that I am Deucalionite is laughable. The fact that there is "commutable distance" between myself and Deucalionite is new to me. I have never met Deucalionite face-to-face and he has never met me.

Future Perfect, I am very disappointed in your behavior as an administrator. You have diminished my trust and respect in you. I know you have a history with Deucalionite (a long history in fact), but that is not my concern. I don't care what issues you have with my mentor, but that gives you no right to ban me just because I take advice from him.

Whatever. To prove that I am someone else, I will help Giorgos with the Pelasgians article (on my talkpage of course) after my appointment today with a client. I want this ban removed as soon as possible. Thank you for your lack of "community spirit" and your violation of WP:BITE. Elysonius (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgians[edit]

Giorgos, I read the comments you left on the Pelasgians discussion page. Here are my thoughts:

1) The reason why Pelasgian is even used as a term in archaeology is because archaeologists want to see if their discoveries coincide with anything mentioned in literary and historical texts. The same can be said for the use of the term "Minyans" in archaeological circles. Even though it is better to use more accurate terms to describe Greek prehistorical sites (i.e. Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, etc.), archaeologists will also use other terms from non-archaeological sources in order to determine whether or not archaeological evidence coincides with historical/literary evidence.

2) The sources you have provided (Theoharis and Vermeule) proves that you are a serious user. You have my respect. There is no doubt that these two authors are authorities in the field of archaeology. However, I need data from archaeological reports since they provide forms of direct evidence that readers can assess for themselves. Remember, it is not our job as users to tell readers what to read or what not to read. Our job is to report evidence and reliable data. Of course, there is nothing wrong with putting down authoritative assessments from individuals who have studied the artifacts and sites discovered. However, archaeological evidence comes first and archaeological assessments come second (you cannot assess anything without evidence, it's simple logic).

3) Keep in mind my friend that the archaeological data currently available on the Pelasgians article has not been misinterpreted or misread in any way. Furthermore, it is difficult to argue that there is absolutely no material evidence indicating that the "Pelasgians" existed in Greece. We already know from literary sources that the Minyans and Pelasgians were the same people. Therefore, "Minyan" sites (accurately known as "Middle Helladic" sites) would also represent "Pelasgian" sites. We could even argue that "Minyan ware" is also a form or indication of "Pelasgian ware". Archaeologists should never be afraid to call something for what it is (i.e. "Minyan", "Pelasgian", "Mycenean") if they feel that they have ample non-archaeological evidence to support their identification procedures. Case in point, Emily Vermeule was not afraid to use the term "Minyan" to describe Middle Helladic sites in Greece. Moreover, I doubt she was afraid when she stated that the "Minyans" were, allegedly, the "first wave of true Hellenes in Greece" (this quote is from the Minyans article).

4) Focus on the evidence. In other words, use modern archaeological reports.

5) Avoid using the "Indo-European" theory. This is a mostly a linguistic paradigm that does not usually coincide with archaeological data. The purpose of the "Archaeological evidence" section is to report archaeological evidence. That's it. Arguments regarding the "Indo-European" or "non-Indo-European" identity of prehistorical cultures in Greece are found in the "Theoretical interpretations" section.

5) Do not underestimate the discoveries and assessments made by the Italian School of Archaeology and the American Classical School. These two institutions are very authoritative in the data they collect and distribute. Of course, this is not to say that the data they present is perfect. Yet, their discoveries and assessements are both reliable and verifiable (things that Wikipedia needs in order to maintain its identity as a "neutral encyclopedia").

6) I disagree with your statement that the "Archaeological evidence" section should be omitted or radically altered. The section as it is now is heavily sourced with verifiable and reliable data. Therefore, removing such valuable data would violate WP:RS. However, you can amend the section by adding data from other archaeological reports or from the authoritative sources you provided earlier.

Do not take this the wrong way my friend. My job on the Pelasgians article is to make sure that everything is based on reliable, verifiable, and accurate data. That's it. Elysonius (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elysonius/Deukalionite(?), I have to admit that I am not sure whether you are none other than Deukalionite. If it is not so, pray don't get me wrong, but as a newcomer I find this whole situation quite baffling and in bad taste actually. I am not even sure if I should be writing anything in this talk page and since I am still στραβόγιαννος I can't reach a conclusion of my own as to the validity of the sock puppetry allegations. I don't know if it makes you feel any better but since you are so interested in the Pelasgians article I should tell you in advance that I am now more inclined towards "amending" and changing rather than "omiting" the Archeological Evidence section. I agree with some of your points but you seem to be quite confused as to the methodology of archaeological research and the importance of what you term "direct evidence". I' ve been working with archaeologists during the past 11 years and, believe me, I am very sensitive with words and terms (you see words and their exact meaning is actually my bread and butter... I am a translator after all). Your florid writing style makes your arguments sound quite authoritative but in fact they largely rely on a (consciously?) very loose usage of terms and concepts like: "Direct Evidence", "Archaeological Report", "Indo-European Theory" and ultimately even "Minyans" and "Pelasgians". They have very, very specific meanings and it's not nice (or should I say honest) to use them loosely or arbitrarily. I am sure you are aquainted with "Αρχή σοφίας ονομάτων επίσκεψις" but I won't start explaining why this is so in each and every term you (uknowingly?) misconstrue. I am not going to start editing any part of the article before I get all my facts straight and my sources in order, so you needen't worry. My time is really limited and I really can't write more. By the way I never even hinted to the idea that the American or the Italian Archaeological School are anything less than reliable. Do try to read more carefully what I write, because the other day you did just the same with my comment on Byzantines (it is very very frustrating). Best Regards. P.S. I am not going to answer to this talk page anymore unless your slate is somehow wiped clean. If by any chance you happen to live in Athens κερνάω καφεδάκι and we can discuss every and each one of your points at length. Trust me, Ι am not ο μανιακός δολοφόνος με το πριόνι and I can be quite an agreeable company--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still unbelievable.[edit]

Still erroneously blocked due to "inconclusive evidence". Never got a chance to tell my side of the story. Elysonius (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting.[edit]

Still waiting for someone to respond. I am still erroneously blocked due to "inconclusive evidence". Never got a chance to tell my side of the story. Elysonius (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneously blocked[edit]

I am still erroneously blocked due to "inconclusive evidence". Never got a chance to tell my side of the story. Elysonius (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive evidence[edit]

Still banned on inconclusive evidence. Elysonius (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea![edit]

Hey Deucalionite! In case you did not receive my email, just tell me what articles to assess. I'll assess them right here. Don't worry about me. I'll be fine. Thank you for everything you have done for me Deucalionite. I learned so much about editing articles that I have taken these skills and applied them to all sorts of papers I read at my job. Again, thanks. You really a true friend. Elysonius (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment 1[edit]

First order of business (that was quick):

From Deucalionite himself via email 4/1/08: Elysonius please assess/criticize the following articles: Ardian, Greeks, and Thracians. Just get to the problems and suggest solutions. Okay? I'll see to it that I bring more articles for you to assess. Take care my friend. Good luck.

Ardian[edit]

This article needs a lot of work.

Article lacks grammatical structure.
The bullets have to go
Citation needs to be cleaned up
Someone should actually spend some time expanding the article (I would if I wasn't banned).

Greeks[edit]

One of the most pathetic articles I have ever laid eyes on.

Grammatical errors.
Spelling erros.
The amount of white space between paragraphs is too large.
There are sentences that should not be in bold.
Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and should not be used. Secondary sources are preferable.

Thracians[edit]

Another piece of trash Wikipedia calls an "article".

Too much white space.
Citations need to be cleaned up.
Original research must be removed without hesitation.
Disorganized pictures.

You know, I am going to enjoy ripping on Wikipedia articles now that I have been banned indefinitely for questionable reasons. Elysonius (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aric Van Gaalen[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aric Van Gaalen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Aric Van Gaalen. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]