`  == Putting an end to this. ==  More useless assumptions from the ``trained classicist.`` Let's clear up a few things before our disagreements go too far.  1) I was not implying that the ``Etruscan`` and ``Anatolian`` views should be removed. I was simply stating that the data in the literary and archaeological sections provides a stronger case. Moreover, discussing the realities that exist in academic institutions also does not imply that I want to remove the ``Etruscan`` and ``Anatolian`` views. Direct evidence is needed to support any viewpoint whether literary, archaeological, or both. Stop using the ``original research`` card just because you don't agree with other users let alone base your notions of other users on faulty assumptions.   2) You state that Herodotus meant ``non-Hellenic`` when he called the Pelasgian language ``barbaric.`` Well, I am afraid you are wrong. In accordance to modern secondary sources, Herodotus called the language of the Pelasgians ``barbaric.`` Here is just a sample to prove this basic fact (more sources are on their way):  *Herodotus's Conception of Foreign Languages - I do not know why you deleted this when you began editing the Pelasgians article. However, the information it contains is valuable for clarifying whatever ``disputes`` exist over Herodotus's statements. It is as much of a valuable external link as your Godley reference. The only difference entails the fact that Thomas Harrison's article is from the 1990s and Godley's interpretation of Herodotus's statements date back to the Roaring 20s.   3) Your interpretation of the Skourta Plain project's findings is atrocious to say the least. The areas that were identified as ``Pelasgian sites`` were Middle Helladic (i.e. Minyan) and Late Helladic (i.e. Mycenean) sites. Either way you slice it, you are talking about two different kinds of ``proto-Greek``. I am well aware of the fact that the Foreigners and Barbarians addition causes some dissonance, but the source reflects a ``carry-over effect`` (i.e. since the Pelasgians lived until Herodotus's time, then it would make sense to acknowledge the fluidity of ethnicity between Greeks and Pelasgians and not just between Dorians and Ionians or Spartans and Athenians). If you want to remove the verifiable text associated with the Foreigners and Barbarians citation, then by all means do so. I don't care. However, I deliberately cite direct quotes so that readers can find more easily the source of any data shown in the article.   4) Just so you know, I am not making any claim to special authority. I am merely emphasizing the fact that I have experience with the article's content evolution. The only reason my statements are ``obscure`` to you is because you perceive them as ``obscure.`` Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that you should ``get my permission`` before working on the article. I stated that you should consult with me so that a rudimentary form of collaboration can be established. Moreover, I do not ``own`` the article since I do not carry the ``deed`` in my pocket (except, yes, Jimbo Wales). So, please don't waste your breath about such notions. Also, I did not ``lose my temper.`` Being adamant does not always have to entail losing one's temperance. You of all people should know that much. So, please don't waste your time with such notions. On a sidenote, you didn't bother to critique my work since you simply deleted the majority of it. For me to question your edits on minor levels is not a crime just so you know. I don't want you to get permission to work on the article, I want you to work with other reasonable users regardless if you agree or disagree with them. Simple. As for the apology you requested, I am sorry if I have vexed you because I reasonably questioned some of your edits. Sorry to have been such a terrible impediment just because I questioned a trained classicist. Are you happy now?   5) You've read my userpage. Congratulations. Did you read the disclaimer or did you skip it? All my actions (including what I wrote on my userpage) are all under the aegis of ``academic business in progress.`` As for my ``pride,`` I never had any to start with. I had to build it, destroy it, rebuild it, and destroy it again (not a big deal if you think about it). So, spare me the useless interpretations. I am not here to attain ``victory`` (whatever the hell that means) since you my friend were already ``victorious`` in the successful edits you have made to the article. So, pat yourself on the back for a job well done despite facing a couple of stumbling blocks. No, I am not going to ``ruin`` the article if I ``don't get my way.`` Trust me, I know all about article ruination and if I wanted to ruin the article, I would have done it the instant you began editing. I have no intention of w