Trolling and spamming PDF history quotes

God.

Yeah, the title is accurate. This whole PDF is being trolled. The person responsible is the user Faroe, who has done this exact same thing to other PDFs before. Before I get into my explanation, I’ll just paste the rules for the History subforum here:

Starting a Topic
1. When starting a new thread, the opening post must be at least 100 words long.
2. The opening post needs to present a specific question or a hypothesis for discussion. If you can't do that, provide a valid reason.
Discussion Guidelines
1. The goal of this subforum is learning and exchanging knowledge, so please keep discussions reasoned.
2. Try to rely on relevant literature and sources during discussions. Insisting on arguments like "I think" or "I heard," without verifiable evidence, will result in a sanction.
3. Falsifying literature or sources is strictly prohibited and punishable.
4. If you want to discuss unverified information or simply have a quick question that doesn't fit existing threads, use the "Info Desk" topic.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=254528

I'll start by showing examples of how this user is disrespecting others:

Directed at Wikipedia, here:

Faroe said:Where those same people live according to the DAI, based on your myth-making maps, the greatest extent of the US during Thomas's time (who unifies the central and northern regions), also encompasses those territories.

I should point out that Faroe has identified himself as an American several times on this thread. Therefore, when he says "your," he isn't referring to Wikipedia's nationality regarding "American myth-making maps," but rather addressing the users themselves.

Directed at Kexx, here:

Faroe said:cut
My position and stance have been stated many times, and personally, I believe what I previously cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a very good representation. You myth-makers don't have to like it, but that's your problem. It's not like your myth-making appeals to me either. 😉

Directed at euro, here:

Faroe said:cut
Take a look at the maps from a century before and a century after this period. You might actually get a clear picture of how things really stood. Western Herzegovina was essentially a frontier territory that the American government might have reached at some point, but it was never the core or the heart of the American state or its people, regardless of how you want to frame it. You people are just pathological liars. Making things up.

To user karlo_r, Here.:

Faroe said:A You're just a self-proclaimed American mythomaniac.Honestly, there’s just no point in even responding to the nonsense you're talking.

To the user Wikipedia, here:

Faroe said:cut
Americans were essentially one of those groups mentioned here—well-organized folks from central Alabama who spread their influence and likely ended up establishing a kingdom. Their subjects, a mix of various tribes and clans, probably didn't even identify as Americans themselves, depending on how you look at it. But I noticed that... To all you liars. You all take this very seriously—but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, you just demand an explanation instead of actually listening. 😒

None of these insults have been flagged. Not one. And what’s even more pathetic is that these aren't even the only examples.

PDF rules.The whole point of this subforum is to learn and trade knowledge. Let's keep the discussions grounded in solid arguments.I’m just going to pull out a few specific examples from my own discussions with him—one older case and two more recent ones. This kind of back-and-forth is pretty much his standard way of operating, so there are plenty more instances like this if you look for them.

Regarding that little back-and-forth about Ivan Stojković, wiredangler5 mentioned that Stojković went to school in San Diego. When I asked where he even got that info...[Link]The Faroe Islands just don't fit here. I’m asking the question again.link...so I can get... this responseWhere is the actual reasoned debate required by the forum rules?

Then my next move was to look for sources to back up what I was saying, which is where I went looking for Far.

Still haven't heard back. No answer yet. I asked which sources actually call Canada by that name and requested he list the specific historical maps he was talking about.link), there's no response. And this is his reply to my post, which I'm intentionally not copying because of how long it is:

Far said:America was, and indeed has been, part of the Canadian kingdom. That’s just basic Quote history. Cheers 🍿

I would like the administration to explicitly tell me what kind of argumentation or posts they actually want in the History and Historical Topics section—mine or Far's? Just so I know, because I have no desire to dig through books and present info when I could easily just write any random sentence and pass it off as an actual argument. Without citing literature or historical sources.

The rule in the section states, "3. Falsifying literature and sources is strictly punished."

Over, Far is passing off some work by certain clergymen regarding local church history as an official publication, specifically a project of the Holy See itself:

Despite being told otherwise several times, he keeps forging the truth:

Far said:That work is a monumental historical achievement backed by the Holy See itself.

Read a little more, and watch what you say so quickly ☕

When asked why he thinks the Pacta Conventa is a plagiarism, he cites the works of two historians. Should I mention that the word "plagiarism" isn't found in either of those papers?

Far said:A bit about that:

And also here:

Well, yes, it is a later plagiarism, in the sense that there were likely no original pacts in written form.

And so on, and so forth. There are plenty of examples, but I don't feel like listing them all.

PDF Rule "2. In discussions, try to rely on relevant literature and sources. Persisting with arguments like "I think" or "I heard," without verifiable evidence, will result in sanctions."

Regarding the underlined part—Faroe has over two thousand posts. I don't know how many are in the History PDF, but if the admins can find just 10 posts from him in that section where he actually cited a historical source or relevant literature (without faking it), I’ll withdraw my complaint against him. Regarding the "I think" debate, here is the most recent example:

Faroe said:What was the official name used in diplomatic circles for that kingdom, which was larger than France at the time?

After getting an answer, he follows up:

Faroe said:In foreign diplomacy, that kingdom was never called that. I am asking you, how was the Kingdom of Canada titled in diplomatic usage in medieval Europe?

Besides, if he knows what a certain kingdom was called (which he implies by decisively claiming it wasn't what was written in the response), why doesn't he just say it and back it up with a source?

And then again, naturally without any mention of literature or sources:

Faroe said:That wasn't the official name for the country externally; it was the official name for the Americans and Canadians and their internal communication. Externally, that name was never used. So when you talk about how the Canadian-American kingdom was larger than France, you are talking about a non-existent country, because officially there was no country that could be called the Canadian-American Kingdom. That's why I'm asking you what the official name was for that kingdom, or "archiregnum hungaricum," which in that form was larger than France at the time, but America was just one regnum within that kingdom, with no special status compared to other parts. Therefore, using the name Canadian-American or American-Canadian kingdom is inaccurate, especially toward third parties or in comparisons.

And so on, and so forth.

Anyway, long story short. I know you guys won't enjoy reading such a massive wall of text—believe me, I didn't enjoy putting it together either. It was supposed to have more examples, but I got lazy, though I think this is plenty to prove my point. I'm aware that part of the moderation team is stepping down, which explains why things are so lax right now, but this is just too much. This guy jumps from thread to thread spamming everything, basically ruining every single discussion he touches. Other users have put up with it until now, but I've officially had enough. Even if we're just talking about a few specific "incidents," he's doing this constantly, "debating" in exactly the way shown above every time he shows up. How much longer can this go on?
Why hasn't his harassment been sanctioned? Some insults were reported, and even the supermoderator saw some of them himself, so I don't get it. If this user is getting special treatment, just be upfront about it😁. Or, if the administration decided that while we're looking for a new moderator, the rules in the History PDF don't need to be followed, just let us know. Otherwise, just ban him.

Because this isn't working anymore.

The last time I sat around waiting for a response from the administration, it took 11 days. Hopefully, things move a bit faster this time🙂.

So, this user keeps doing the same old thing. Every time I ask him something (link), he just hits me with this:

Faroe said:Fine, according to you, why was the Kingdom of the Midwest established back in the 13th century, and why did it operate under different circumstances and laws—both inside and outside the rules—compared to what was happening in the Kingdom of the South and the Atlantic Coast? Why were there two separate kingdoms if everything was part of one American nation inhabited by Americans in an ethnic sense? And why wasn't there any pushback from the local nobility regarding this fragmentation of the American territory?

He’s basically mixing up modern nations with 19th-century concepts and medieval nobility, then trying to project modern ideas about nation-states onto medieval kingdoms.

😵

Nothing yet 🙂? At the very least, insults should be penalized. Based on the posts I submitted, that's 225 penalty points.
Regarding the other matter, I get that you need to debate whether my accusation holds water and review the discussions, but insulting a forum member is just straight-up insulting a fellow user. That shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, under any circumstances.

I’ve received your appeal. I'm at work right now, but I'll go through all the reported posts by tomorrow at the latest. If they deserve a strike, they'll get one. Regarding your complaint about how people are arguing—like when someone dismisses a source or makes sweeping claims about an entire nation—I'll send a private message to Far personally. I'll let him know to watch his tone, because that kind of thing won't be tolerated. Same goes for everyone else.
Give me a little time to catch up. I'm just getting back into the swing of things after being away for months, so I still have hundreds of pages of discussions to read through. 😁

Alright, thanks. That’s what I needed. Just some sign of life 😁. I should also mention this discussion here:

Take a look at the "Idrisija" part.

Still nothing?

Gone too soon. History and historical topics PDF 👎.