User talk:A.Cython

Thanks

Thank theeMegistias (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcomed :D A.Cython (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello, marry easter for my dear greek orthodox friend. PelasgicMoon (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and happy easter to you -- A.Cython (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venizelos

Hi and welcome!

As a matter of fact, you submitted the article for assessment and not for review, which is more detailed. The WP:GREECE conducts reviews here.

The WP:BIOGRAPHY and the [{WP:MILHIST]] also conduct peer-reviews, where more frequently users watch and review. I usually review in WP:BIO and in WP:GREECE, whenever I see any article submitted there.

There is no rule about who reviews, but the reviewers are usually experienced users.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not remove it. Both procedures can go simulaneously, but the assessment will not offer to you any feedback, just what it says; a first assessment (B, start, stub) of the article's quality, and maybe some brief comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great, Macedon King

Please look at the newest entry in the "Talk" of "Alexander the Great" article. Several are the reasons why Alexander the Great should not be qualified as "Greek". Ilidio.martins (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venizelos' review

See some additional suggestions of mine in the peer-review. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments to your comments!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Schism

Hello! I did not intend to edit anything today (university exams etc), it was a spur of the moment thing, when I saw it in my watchlist. I always wanted to add some more background to the story, and it was pretty much formed out in my mind, so I added it. I will not have time to contribute to any real extent in the following weeks, except perhaps some copyediting. So you are free to edit it as you like. If I have any suggestions, I'll let you know first. Cheers & happy editing! Constantine ✍ 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Monarchs

Dear A.Cython, I understand the logic of your category edits, but they go against convention. They were not ethnic Greeks but, for better or worse (mostly the latter), they were heads of the Greek state, and that throws them into the categories at issue. Regards, sys < in (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Greece August 2008 newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Democracy

I'm making some changes to your history of democracy submissions... Verb tenses were wrong and articles are missing. I shall have to educate myself a bit on Greek so I can see if I can help you correct the pattern of errors which are present. An example would be "... The two Kings served as the head of the government and they were ruling simultaneously...". I would write this as "The two kings served as the heads of the government and they ruled simultaneously" a) Don't capitalize nouns b) count must match and c) tenses like "were ruling" should be a simple past tense like "ruled". Sorry, I don't know the proper names for the tense and can't explain it except "were ruling" does not sound right. I will fix the Sparta section and maybe you can look at my changes and see if it helps. johnweeder@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.14.2 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"were ruling" is a (past) continuous tense and is used when one action happens during/interupts another. Example: They were ruling when the cat turned green. I suspect that A.Cython probably knows this and it was a simple error. Thehalfone (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not perfect. If I made any mistake please jump in the article and correct it. A.Cython (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for the Venizelos article

Thank you for your notice. It was my mistake, thinking that the events are well known to add refs about. As you asked me I putted four english refs, included one from the University Press of Kentucky and one from the Cambridge University Press about the landings, the fighting, the bombardment and the “ignominious retreat” of the allied forces during the Noemvriana events. Hope to be OK. As for the brutal and humiliating actions they took that you will possibly ask me also to give refs I have photographic evidences (such as public beatings and humiliations or such as the enforcement of the flagmen of the Greek regiments to parade in front of the allied troops with their flags down etc.) But as I am sure you can understand, as a Greek editor cannot include such evidences of vassalage and national humiliation from our allies in an international encyclopedia's article. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.About the dates: It's the difference between the old calendar and the new one. You have to add 13 days to the old. Then they had the old, hence the “Noemvriana”.
2.About the victims: That's why I think is best to take no part. Just to say the facts. It would be an error to reemerge the national schism at 2009. To me the story is about how “some allies” raped and humiliated a country that happens to be mine. Thus a matter between Greeks and non Greeks in my country. That is how I show it. That's why I mentioned nothing about the Venizelists and their activity during these days in Athens. And I did the same with the royalists about their activities against the Venizelists during the events. But this is my opinion.
3.The allies bombarded everything they don't like it. Not only from their ships. They had put mortars in Likavitos even in the Acropolis, together with machine guns and the like. It was a disgrace all around.And most of all they tried to humiliate as more as possible their future allies. They were not humiliated the royal family as their opponent, they left him unattached to go to the Switzerland, they were royalties part of their royal families. They focused on the people and the army and that has its meaning to me.
4.There is a good link //hubpages.com/hub/How-England-and-France-Forced-Greece-to-enter-WW1 about the events where you can also take a look, although a summary. But the best source that I had found is the Politiki istoria tou Markezini, I think he was a royalist back to 60s but his history is remarkably neutral in its most part. And very detailed volume 4.

Hope to help. Feel free to contact me on anything. --Factuarius (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand what you say about NPOV. To be POV against who? Is there anyone anywhere in the world that justifying the events so to become offended? Or to disagree that this incident was a disgusting act of shameless intervention in disregard to any international rule or practice? A force of 2,000-3000 Anglo-French troops are landing in Athens although the country right or wrong had expressed its will to stay neutral in their war, while some days before they had demanded from the goverment to hand them over all the military material of the army, demand that had be refused. Is there any country in the history that has accepted such a demand? Two weeks later they are landing in Athens to do what? Tourism? Their HQ had no idea what to do with them (in the middle of a WW) and sent them there?

It is the second time you are writing about the bombardment trying to familiarize me with justifications like “was needed to force the release of the Anglo-French captives by the Greek forces”. “Bombarding to release”? Is that really compatible with the logic? Did they know where their soldiers were held as prisoners? How could they be sure that they were not around when they sent their bombs from Faliro to Syntagma? Are you fully convinced that they really cared about them? Have you seen the WWI loses or read how they treated their “human material” during that war? About the numbers of the opponents: What you are not understanding is how much dick they felt against Greece (and not only). They were sure that even if they had sent 100 men, Greeks would never dreamed to touch them. If you cannot understand that particular spirit from the part of the Great Powers during their days being Empires, you will never understand anything about those events, likewise the events before and after. They sent their troops not to fight but to capture and in that they thought them enough. Their number was small not because of limited intelligence but because of the disregard they felt for the political will for opposition. And their estimation proved right, the politicians and the king in the last minute accepted their demands, the opposition came spontaneously from the part of the Greek army units.

Today there is no English nor French who is not feeling ashamed reading such events. Even then their (French) Admiral wrote that he felt very uncomfortable doing what he did. In any case there is not a single historian that supports or justifies what happened. I am hoping that you will not be the first. --Factuarius (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you are giving me is a book of 1918 (when the author hadn't at his disposal the confidential documents of the Foreign Office so to know how the English were playing the Greek Political Mappet Show -GPMS-) and the official Venizelos site as efficient sources for the most "dirty" period of the modern Greece, I will agree with you that It's time to stop hide the bitter truths under the carpet. Lets start telling what really happened during these years. After all, a century later there are no Constantinists and Venizelists to restart the fighting. I believe it's time to open the box, since the current article is really very sterile and purposely rounded in many ways. Will you cooperate to making it more accurate, less "nice" and more "uggly", thus real? --Factuarius (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the opinion the 1918 book express that the allies had the right to make landings in Athens: it only makes me sick. As I told you before and as every diplomat can assure you (I had spoken with one about), it was a disgusting act of shameless intervention of colony type, disregarding any international rule or practice. The definition of what the 19th century historians called Battleship Diplomacy. You will find it interesting to know that in the bombardment, of Athens Greek ships took also part with French crews. They had taken the ships 24 days before (at 7 November) from the Salamina Navy base because they liked them, just like common pirates. As for the site's ..detailing explanation for the events, about the “extremist elements, attacked the British and French troops dispatched to Athens” it does not say what “the British and French troops” were doing in Athens not to mention the very familiar wording used. I feel happy in finding someone that is trying so hard to find allied justification for such actions at 2009. Never dreamed of it. Since you are also a Greek, please accept my congratulations about. --Factuarius (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page, if you still have disagreements! There is not reason to enter into an edit war! --Factuarius (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Solon US House of Representatives.jpg

File:Solon US House of Representatives.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Solon bas-relief in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Solon bas-relief in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Venizelos WWI 1918.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Venizelos WWI 1918.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help a bit?

User:Wikiwatcher1 has been trolling around the Judaism page; see this bit of talk for a sample. He insists on using dictionary definitions over sources by Jewish scholars. I suspect he has a general agenda reflected in his POV pushing in other articles. I see you have had some experience dealing with him. WP:DE points out that a disruptive editor often evades detection because the disruptive edits are spread out among different articles. I think there may be just such a pattern here. Would you mind watching the Judaism page and see how he has been altering a consensus-version text without any consideration to points made by editors who have been working on the article for years? If you see any shenanigans you are familiar with, your experienced comment would help. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale required on Democracy

It is generally not good form to revert good faith edits, especially when fully explained and valid, without giving any rationale. You have restored completely uncited OR, already marked with numerous warning tags. I posted a talk page request to do something about all those erroneous paragraphs. They were made into subsections, and cluttered the TOC with the OR. If they were your OR, I'm sorry, but the material is not acceptable without sources. In addition, removing another editors work without any attempt to explain is typically what creates edit warring. I hope you can agree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it! You have made several edits the last couple days which are at the boundaries between good faith and abuse of the WP rules. Before you completely remove them try first to improve them as people have suggested you [1]. Second some paragraphs although not having an explicit citation they were naming their source, deleting it without second though given your history looks very suspicious.A.Cython (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status of Noemvriana

After spending 8 hours checking refs, grammar, spelling and all the other criteria as required by Wikipedia rules (please see article talk page for list), I strongly believe that the article qualifies as a GA. I don't know if you wrote it, but you nominated it so: Congratulations! I have approved the article Noemvriana. It qualifies as a GA, and has been placed in the appropriate category. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek history proposal

Hello! I have tabled a proposal on a restructuring of coverage of modern Greek history in Wikipedia, and am awaiting input by any interested user. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help for the French translation of Noemvriana

Hello! I think your work about Noemvriana is very interesting, that's why I decided to translate it into French some times ago. In fact, now, the French version is a featured article on our wikipedia. However, I just find a point which is a bit strange so I would like to know if you can verify it. You wrote : "On 3 November, du Fournet, used the sinking of two Greek merchant ships by a German submarine, as well as the secret agreement, to demand the surrender of the docked Greek war ships and took command of the Salamis French arsenal.(23) The Greek government yielded, and on the 19 October, the partial disarmament of Greek warships begun. The Allies towed away 30 lighter craft.(24) Three weeks later the French took over the Salamis naval base completely, and began using Greek ships operated by French crews.(25,26,27)." I think there is a chronological problem here and I would like to know if "19 October" is not "19 November". Unfortunately, I have not got the books you put in reference so I can't verify myself.
Thank you very much for your help. Konstantinos

Thanks for your observation and it is a valid point. Unfortunately I am in Greece for vacations and I will be back in two weeks time where I will have the book to check the dates. By the way you have done excellent job on translating the article into French :) A.Cython (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll be waiting. 82.237.218.242 (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Konstantinos[reply]

Hi! Finally, could you verify the dates of the paragraph ? Have a goog day. 82.237.218.242 (talk) Konstantinos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.167.98 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but I am waiting one more book from the library to be completely sure. Apologies if it takes long time, but doing things right take time.A.Cython (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work. I just made the correction on the French version of Noemvriana and in fr:Grèce dans la Première Guerre mondiale. Have a good day. Konstantinos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.218.242 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Greece newsletter

The WikiProject Greece Newsletter
Issue XII (VIII) – March 2011

Project news

This is the eighth newsletter of the WikiProject Greece, and the first after a two-year-long hiatus! Please comment on its form, the way it is delivered, its content etc. We need your ideas and contributions!
Recognized content: as of publication, our project stands at 47 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 11 A-class articles and 102 Good Articles, making up 1% of its ca. 15,000 tagged articles and lists.

Ongoing drives and discussions – You can help!

Due to the restructuring of the administrative divisions of Greece as a result of the Kallikratis reform, a large number of administrative units and settlements need to be updated. Please refer to the discussions at the project talk page and the overview table for more information.
Project members are requested to aid in checking the huge backlog of articles created by Pumpie (talk · contribs) for mistranslations and original research. This affects over 2,000 Greece-related articles and lists, and your help is vital!
A new portal on Greek Macedonia has been set up: Portal:Macedonia (Greece). Please contribute by adding content and improving it and the other portals related to our WikiProject!
Additional input is always needed in the ongoing deletion discussions about Greece-related articles.
You can help with assessing unassessed articles for quality and importance (Guidelines).

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options.

Photo

Hello A. Cython, is it here I should talk with you? I wonder if you have a suggestion on where i should put my photo, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exoria-Ios-Konstantinos-Dalianis-1917.pdf, ? Maybe just a link from Noemvriana to the photo? Best regards Hercules, (talk), 19:39, 15 november 2011

I meant the discussion page of the article Noemvriana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noemvriana). But anyway, the photo is interesting but does not fit with the subject of that particular article. Also it would have more value as a photo for wiki articles if there were no arrows on it. I am not sure where it could fit at the moment, but maybe you are interested into creating an article about the exile of royalist/military people of that era, such an article would have been the ideal place for the photo.A.Cython (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venizelos

I went ahead and reverted all of the IP's edits, there was nothing constructive there. Hope you don't mind. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. At some point I want to revise the whole text, but that is so time consuming :S A.Cython (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TIME cover Eleftherios Venizelos.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:TIME cover Eleftherios Venizelos.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isbn errors on your Sources page

Hi, your Sources page is appearing in Category:Pages with ISBN errors. Just checking a few of them, several seem to have used the 10-digit isbn, prefixed with 978-, but the check digit is calculated differently for a 13-digit isbn. Any chance you could try to resolve the issues, please, so Pages with ISBN errors is not cluttered up with user pages. There are various isbn checkers on the web, and ones that will turn 10-digit numbers into proper 13-digit numbers, if you are stuck. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grc incubator project

Dear A.Cython, seeing that you are a member of the Wikiproject Greece group and deal mostly with ancient history, I am letting you know that there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, A.Cython. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A.Cython. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, A.Cython. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy among animals

I made a refactor to the talk page in the subject thread here, which affects a comment you made there. It doesn't appear that the comment you made was intended for the section on animals, but I'm not sure where it was supposed to go. Could you please check it and make sure it ended up where you intended it go. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now Furius has moved it back. Could you please check it and make sure it's where you wanted to put it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap... it is better in the current form. Apologies for the late reply. I am not frequently in Wiki as I was a decade ago, but from time to time I glance a few things here and there. A.Cython (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]