User talk:A.Cython/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:A.Cython. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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. [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.14.2 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello A.Cython! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Andreas Papandreou, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://epdf.pub/modern-greece-a-history-since-1821-a-new-history-of-modern-europe-nwme.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Andreas Papandreou and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Andreas Papandreou, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Andreas Papandreou. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Andreas Papandreou with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Andreas Papandreou saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Diannaa (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am writing the particular part that you deleted, but I am at a loss regarding how much material you removed when most of it does not resemble Koliopoulos' book. Could you please be specific about which sentences are causing trouble so that we can resolve it? I will also ask other editors to assist in this issue. If I am doing something wrong here, please point out where I am overstepping. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You can see what remains to be done by using Earwig's tool. Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andreas Papandreou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Keeley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Koskotas.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Koskotas.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi A.Cython. All non-free content is required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. You provided a non-free use rationale, but didn't provide a copyright license. Files without a copyright license are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F4; if no license is provided before seven days have passed, the file can be deleted. I suggest using the license {{Non-free biog pic}} in this case since that seems the most appropriate. None of this, however, is going to likely matter since the file is almost certainly going to be deleted before then as "replaceable non-free use" per WP:F7. I saw you're contesting this fact, but non-free files of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because in almost all cases its reasonable for an equivalent replacement image to either be found or created that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as explained in WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Given that Koskotas is no longer imprisoned, you're going to have a hard justifying the use of this or any other non-free image of him. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be much more restrictive than fair use, and this is one of the ways that it is. Anyway, this is just my assessment and an administrator will review what you posted on the file's page and decide whether the file meets the criteria for speedy deletion or should be further discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @User:Marchjuly, it is the first time uploading such a photo. The last time was more than 12 years ago about things happening over a century ago. So, if the community thinks it should not be there, it is ok with me. I had to try to learn something about it (the process, etc). Thank you for explaining this to me; it was very instructive. Do I delete the image or just wait for it to be deleted? A.Cython (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Only an administrator can delete a file. An administrator should review the file within a few days. If they decide it meets the criteria for replaceable non-free use, they will delete the file. If not, they'll decline the speedy deletion and either cleanup what needs cleaning up or suggest the file be further discussed at WP:FFD. If you don't want to wait until then, you can request that the file be deleted per WP:G7 by adding the syntax {{db-author}} to the top of the file's page. The file should be deleted fairly soon after you do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@User:Marchjuly I just requested for deletion. It seems more appropriate. Again, thank you for clarifying this to me. It appears it is a lot more difficult to find photos without copyright issues. A.Cython (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you do a Google Image search of "George Koskotas", you'll find there are quite a number of photos of him available online; unfortunately, all them seem (at least at first glance) to be released under licensing that's too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes. Given that his case appears to involve the US federal government, if you could find a photo of him taken while he was in custody in the US that was taken by a US federal government employee as part of their official duties, the photo might be within the public domain as explained here. It needs to have been taken by an employee of the US federal government, though; anything taken by a state, city or other local government official would likely still be protected by copyright. The other option would be to see whether you can find any original photos of Koskotas posted by the photographer who took them on some social media account; if they're the copyright holder of the photo, you might be able to convince them to give their WP:PERMISSION. Other than that, you can try contacting the subject himself and asking him if he could provide an original photo, either a selfie or one perhaps taken by a relative or friend. It's a bit of a long shot perhaps but some users have gotten photos that way. One last thing is that given Koskotas is Greek, if you could find an original photo published in a Greek publication that would be OK per c:COM:Greece, then it should be OK for that to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; before doing that, though, you might want to ask about the photo at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I will try your proposals. The Greek wiki on el:Σκάνδαλο Κοσκωτά has the first page of a newspaper with a Koskotas' picture as well. Is this good enough? A.Cython (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Part of the challenge is that even if it is originally from a Greek publication, it is difficult to verify this. Maybe even the one I uploaded was from a Greek publication, but it would be next to impossible for me to figure it out. I will keep looking.A.Cython (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia is a separate and distinct project from the others; there might be some overlapping, but they've all got their own policies and guidelines. I'm not familiar with Greek Wikipedia's image use policy, but any files uploaded to English Wikipedia would need to meet English Wikipedia's policy. FWIW, since English Wikipedia has more users and more articles, it's policies and guidelines tend to be applied more vigorously than perhaps is happening on some of the other language Wikipedias. It could be a case that the file in question isn't OK per Greek Wikipedia policy but just that nobody pointed it out so far. I highly doubt that particular file would be OK to use under English Wikiepdia's non-free content use policy, except possibly perhaps as a non-free image being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about that particular paper or that particular issue of the paper. In such cases, it could be treated as album covers, book covers, magazine covers, etc are treated in articles about albums, books, magazines, etc., but it wouldn't have issues with WP:FREER and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI if you tried to use it in the English Wikipedia article about Koskotas. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for sharing you are not a native English speaker. Throughout the article, there are instances of sentence structure and wording choices that lead to lack of clarity. It still has NPOV issues. Questions to answer/issues to address include:

• Who received the subsidies?
• What lead to suspicion that the corn was not Greek?
• The article only mentions the one shipment, but seems there were two.

The New York Times article you referenced, had some interesting details, including specifics on the subsidies

• Simons, Marlise (19 November 1989). "Case of seagoing corruption embarrasses Greece". New York Times.

— ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck Many thanks for the feedback. I will try to answer the questions based on the sources I have read, all of which provide partial information.

• The benefit of the scheme, as I understand, was twofold. First, the state company would avoid import fees since it was labeled a Greek product (from Kavala) instead of a foreign and non-EEC country. Moreover, there were EU funds/subsidies to incentivize Greek exports. The more exports the Greek government could report then more EEC funds would be available; Greece had significant productivity issues from the 1970s oil crises and its entrance into the competitive EEC market, and these funds were meant to smooth the transition. All sources are clear that the Greek government benefited from the scheme at the expense of the EEC.
• The sources are unclear on how Brussels and the European Commission learned about the shipments. The New York Times article says they got "a tip." A Greek source states: "Το νέο μαθεύτηκε γρήγορα στις Βρυξέλλες, προφανώς ύστερα από καταγγελία..." [translation: "The news was quickly learned in Brussels, apparently after a complaint..."]. I mean, how hard would it be? Hiding a ship carrying 9000 tons of corn coming from a country allied with the Warsaw Pact was a little tricky while the Cold War was still on. One source speculates that someone did not get a cut and complained, but that's speculation.
• The investigation started with one shipment. Only afterward, when the European investigation committee arrived in Greece and began to dig around, did they find in the records a second shipment (a bit later on, as I understand). All other sources mention the first one, but I think it is because it was the first that made a splash on the news. I presume the second was only mentioned during the trial. A.Cython (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) To clarify, the Greek sources focus only on the first one. A.Cython (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

As the body of the article does not claim any direct involvement by Papandreou in the scandal, to maintain NPOV (pointing fingers), leave out mention of his name in the introduction and the body of the article. It may still be appropriate in the final section on the aftermath. In addition, unless the political party was directly involved, mention of the party affiliation is not NPOV.

There are still clarity issues in the article.

Here is an example for the introductory paragraph:

The Yugoslav corn scandal (Greek: σκάνδαλο του γιουγκοσλαβικού καλαμποκιού) was a political corruption scandal in Greece between 1986 and 1990. A total of 20,000 tons of corn was imported from Yugoslavia in 1986 and falsely labeled as Greek through forged documents. The corn was then exported to other European Economic Community (EEC) countries, allowing the fraudulent claim of $1.5 million in EEC subsidies intended for domestic Greek corn. The state-owned company International Commerce (ITCO), a government-controlled entity responsible for managing agricultural trade, played a key role in facilitating the fraudulent shipments. After the EEC initiated an investigation, Greek government officials were involved in efforts to cover up the scheme. In 1989, Greece was fined over $3.8 million by the European Court of Justice. Investigations by the Greek Parliament followed, leading to a trial in Greece in 1990, where 6 individuals were convicted for their involvement.

Note that you should double check the example to be sure that it is factual and that it conveys the information appropriately; for example, do we know if the corn was exported to one or more countries? Do we know if Greece paid the fine?

The DYKs, as stated, have some inaccuracies. Here are a few examples that could work:

• DYK...that the Yugoslav corn scandal was the first case where a member government (Greece) defrauded the European Economic Community, leading to a trial in which Greece refused to participate?
• DYK....that the Greek government defended the Yugoslav corn fraud as being in the "national interest" even though it involved forged documents and gaining $1.5 million in illegal subsidies?
• DYK... that the Greek government tried to cover up the Yugoslav corn fraud by forging documents and delaying investigations, only to later defend the scheme as being in the "national interest"?

— ERcheck (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you work on the article. Sorry for asking about the tips twice. Only trying to help with the article. I also don't mean to imply the article must reach GA status. — ERcheck (talk)

@ERcheck Do not get me wrong. I greatly appreciate the feedback and help. I do not mind being told I am wrong so long it is explained to me. Otherwise, it gets frustrating. Once I know why, I can avoid making the same mistake and have guidance on how to fix things in the future. For example, it did not cross my mind that having the name Premier in the lead would trigger issues. Now I know. A.Cython (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that this article has a good chance of passing DYK with revisions, and, also, being improved with some additional edits. Would you be open to continuing to work together on some of these refinements?

To keep things streamlined, we could move detailed discussion to user talk page for this purpose: A.Cynthon/Corn scandal discussion. Let me know if you’d prefer another approach.— ERcheck (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Any help is welcomed and happy to share credit. A.Cython (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

We can conntinue the discussion here on how to improve the article. Though at the end we can move it at the article's talk page since it would be the most natural place for keeping a record. A.Cython (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm only interested in helping fellow editors and in adding to the knowledge base in Wikipedia. I'm also enjoying learning something new. — ERcheck (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• I made some changes to the DYK submission template, and made a request for sources to be added to the new ALTs. They can be added in the space after "Source" at the corresponding <small> Source: </small>. In the updated intro to the article, please add citations for each fact. (see WP:DYKHFC). — ERcheck (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• I made changes to the article's {{sfn}} entries as the fields are interpreting places where you have a "Month YYYY", as a new author, thus rendering it with an & . In most places, I made it just the year, but if same first field, but different mon year, I put the month in the first field, such as with the NYT, I made it {{sfn|Simons, New York Times|1989}}. Using the author's surname, as is traditional. If the same first field was used and there were multiple dates, I moved the month into the first field. — ERcheck (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, I just made some tiny fixes and added the sources to the new DYK. I think you used the "sfn" format better, which means I have to go to other pages to fix this issue. More edits to do. A.Cython (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@A.Cython - After you add citations to the first paragraph of the article, I can check of the citations in the DYK. Then some changes to reach NPOV, then a final DYK review.  :-) — ERcheck (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I learned something from your use of {{sfn}}. I have typically used <ref name= > for references, and {{efn-ua}} for end notes, — ERcheck (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This section lists two benefits. However, SanSimera.gr (https://www.sansimera.gr/articles/809) says:

Those involved in the transaction, by this action, by baptizing the corn Greek, would avoid paying the compensatory levy, amounting to 182 million drachmas and would additionally benefit from the high sale price and the payment of community subsidies.

Three things are listed: (1) the import levy, (2) the higher sales price, and (3) subsidy payments.

I think making a updates on these facts would improve the article. — ERcheck (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Updated + added a source that provides a little better explanation on how Greece would gain the extra EU subsidies.A.Cython (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The beginning of the Greek trial section starts with the 1989 election, which reads out of place at first: {{quote|In the June 1989 elections, PASOK lost the elections primarily due to Koskotas scandal implicating PASOK members, with over 200 scandals reported over the PASOK administrations from 1981 to 1989.[9] The conservatives and communists, despite being on ideological opposite sides and having fought against each other in the Greek civil war, formed a government to cleanse the state ("Catharsis") from PASOK's corruption.

I suggest moving that part to the end of the European section, with a slight change in wording (indicated in italics):

On the heels of the Court of Justice decision', PASOK lost in the June 1989 elections, due in part to the Koskotas scandal which implicated PASOK members, and the over 200 scandals reported over the course of PASOK administrations from 1981 to 1989.[9] The conservatives and communists, despite being on ideological opposite sides and having fought against each other in the Greek civil war, formed a government committed to cleanse the state ("Catharsis") from PASOK's corruption.

The Greek trial section would then begin with:

Only days after the formation of the collaborative government, the Hellenic Parliament commenced procedures to lift the parliamentary immunity of Athanasopoulos.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Addressing the following should take care of the NPOV issues.

• Papandreou: In the article, before the Aftermath section, mention of Papandreou is not NPOV, as the scandal documentation does not provide evidence of is involvement.
• PASOK: Take care that wording does not imply that PASOK as a whole is corrupt / were involved directly in the fraudulent actions.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, I made the changes that should cover both issues that you raised. Let me know if I missed something or any additional changes are required. A.Cython (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The mention of PASOK, in reference to ITCO, without a clear between the party and the scandal involving ITCO, shows bias. While it may seem logical to think that there is an underlying connection between the deputy finance minister, having been a member of Hellenic Parliament with the PASOK is a tie, but not an inference that is NPOV. Unless you can find an unbiased source to make that connection, PASOK should be deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

With changes that have been made in the article to have an NPOV, the description of the reactions on party lines, and political consequences, the current mentions of PASOK pass muster. Thanks for all your hard work! — ERcheck (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@A.Cython: In the article, you have ITCO as International Company International Commerce. However, in Greek Wikipedia, references to the corn scandal call it International Trading Company. See Greek Wikipedia - Γιώργος Λούβαρης (George Louvaris). — ERcheck (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheckIn Greek sources (see "San Simera"), the name of the company is: Η «Διεθνής Εταιρεία Διεθνούς Εμπορίου ITCO A.E». A google translate would give "International Trade Company." However, you can see the company name has four words, not three. I used a word-for-word translation to keep the number of words consistent. I did so because I could not find a source that provided the company's name in English. Regarding the Greek wiki, I do not know where they got it, the reference at the end of the sentence names the company as ITCO. In the corresponding page for Athanasopoulos page, the company is named just ITCO [2]. If you think "International Trade Company" or some other version is better then let me know to make the appropriate change. A.Cython (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd go with International Trade Company. (International Trade Company). The "CO" = Co of company. It is not uncommon for U.S. companies to use "CO" at the end of their initials to abbreviate Company; for example, oil company ARCO was originally named Atlantic Richfield Company, DBA (doing business as) ARCO. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Done.A.Cython (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@A.Cython: Nice work on the article.Y See Template:Did you know nominations/Yugoslav corn scandal. — ERcheck (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. A.Cython (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In the European trial section, first paragraph, there is a "clarification needed tag". Question, which deputy prime minister. I looked at the reference, and in Google books, I could not see the previous page which likely named the PM. Would you please clarify? Thanks

In 1988, the Deputy Prime Minister,[clarification needed] explained in response to the rising frustration of the Greek public: "Though we may have cheated, we did so for your benefit".[7]

— ERcheck (talk)

I know; I saw the clarification yesterday. The particular reference did not provide the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1988, there were two possible candidates Menios Koutsogiorgas or Ioannis Charalambopoulos, according to Deputy Prime Minister of Greece list. Menios seems a more likely candidate since he was known to state provocative statements, but he got this position in November 1988. However, I am not going to guess without an actual source. I will have to keep digging. A.Cython (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, Papandreou had a very fluid government structure, and it was not unusual for fast rotation between the ministries and his loyal friends to have several ministries simultaneously.A.Cython (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Without a specific person for that quote, consider replacing it with the quote from UPI 1989 -Athanassopoulos' words: He said he was not involved in the selling of the corn, but he and other 'responsible ministers had decided to cover up the scandal in the country's interests.' "

Same idea - for the benefit of Greece. Quote from a high official, and specifically Anthanassopoulos.

— ERcheck (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The answer might be in the following source: Koutsoukis, K. S. (1989) Patterns of Corruption and Political Change in Modern Greece, Corruption and Reform, 4: 1-13. A.Cython (talk)

I do not think I will figure out the person who said the quote any time soon. I commented it out for now.A.Cython (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Cython, you have made massive contributions to the Greek history on Wikipedia and are clearly an experienced editor with a lot to offer. I thank you for your contributions to the community and hope to see more in the future. In particular you have made some justifiably lengthy articles that I hope will inform many readers. As a symbol of the high quality work you have put into these articles I hope to see many of them get to the GA level. As you take these articles to GAN you are likely to encounter editors such as myself who primarily work on GAN. Personally, I think the GA "brand" is important to making Wikipedia a trustworthy outlet for information. As such I take a critical eye to all articles at GAN to ensure that the GA "brand" is upheld. I invite you to come with an open mind to inspect the work I have done on my GA articles like Fukushima nuclear accident. I hope you will see that I too have something valuable to offer the community. In our recent conversations I have been disturbed by how quickly you accuse me of vandalism. I have included this template because although I like to WP:AAGF when an editor repeatedly threatens to take being WP:DR against me I no longer feel like they believe I am operating in good faith. I understand that you have dealt with vandals in the past and that is frustrating. I encourage you to take a bit longer to acuse someone of vandalism and take some time to understand who they are as an editor. If the supposed vandals are people regularly contribute at GAN and have multiple GA then I encourage you to step away and re-approach the matter with several editors as there is probably some consensus that can be built. My final request is that you refrain from ever threatening editors with WP:DR again. Instead, just decide if you want to being the process or not. I recognize you may want to respond. Of course feel free to do so. You may notice that I intentionally left content dispute out of this post as I am specifically using this venue to discuss your conduct.Czarking0 (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding I will consider you a vandal; this is not an accusation or threat saying something is not an accusation does not change whether it is or is not an accusation. Czarking0 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just wanted to make sure you are aware of WP:3RR I believe I have not violated this. The following edits concern me

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1283870780
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&diff=1283868841&oldid=1283868494
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1283861496
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreas_Papandreou&oldid=1283825147

I'll help by taking a break from this article

I suggest that you familiarize yourself during the break with the rules of WP and with the topic since it is rather controversial among Greeks, as your cavalier changes were not particularly helpful. I have to spend another two hours carefully reviewing your changes.

• We do *not* use the first names of political figures. I said it on the talk page, I said this while changing it. We just do not. This is the second time saying this: Show me a single FA article of a prime minister or president that does that.
• We are not paraphrasing quotes by introducing subtle WP:POV.
• You insert unwarranted tags. You have not provided proper justification despite the size of both the lead and the overall article being well within consensus, yet you insist, which I find problematic. A.Cython (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

On 5 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yugoslav corn scandal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greek government officials tried to cover up the Yugoslav corn scandal by forging documents and delaying investigations, only to later defend the scheme as being in the "national interest"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yugoslav corn scandal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yugoslav corn scandal), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)