User talk:A.Cython

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Opening paragraph on Andreas Papandreou

Hey there. I see you have done a great job revitalising and modernising the page pertaining to Andreas Papandreou. I do have to ask about the opening though, because there are quite a few citations when many such articles do not have them in opening bodies, and there is not enough word space to more properly mention a few things, like the Iouliana, the Koskotas scandal, and the 1986 constitutional amendment. I do agree with your assessment of keeping the opening body at four paragraphs, but I do want your opinion on the aforementioned considerations.

Thanks for your time! Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill L. Hal: This article has been the bane of my existence for almost a year (I had to go though most of the literature and 9 articles were created in the process) and I hope to finish the ongoing GA review soon as I wish to work on other articles. I also would like to find way to mention these events, however, the current version was a compromise with different editors as my version was slightly longer. We have to operate under specific constrains:

four paragraphs is the ideal structure for into/lead. No more.
length should not exceed far off the 400 words.

So we have to make priorities.

The issue of length in WP is taken very seriously and there is little benefit arguing [1]. While intro was re-written by Mmemaigret to deal with the length at the intro. Right now I have to trim the whole article to deal with the other too-long tag as the reviewer considers it part of the GAN.

Note that while citations are not needed in the lead, except if it causes edit wars. Far too many people read only the intro and not the rest of the article so they edit the intro based on their beliefs rather being reflective of what has been written and supported by sources. So I introduced the citations to the intro in response to unjustified edits.

Now which topic to prioritize is not easy. Let me outline what seem to come to mind:

Iouliana (an article that needs a serious upgrade) is not as important as explaining his impossible comeback in 1981, by starting with the admission that his father blamed him for the dictatorship. The latter also ties from where his anti-American stance was coming from (his narrative was: it is not my fault but the almighty Americans did it), despite being American educated. Biographers call him "maverick" for his improbable comeback, so this needs to be mentioned as it was his defining political trajectory.
Koskotas scandal was only one of 200+ scandals, so we need to be careful not to imply it was the only one. The wiretap+Junta filing scandals (not written yet as independent articles) was in my opinion much more serious than the Koskotas scandal. In the current version simply mention "numerous scandals" which is good enough. Note that while Koskotas scandal took the lion share, people voted him out of power may have been influenced by other scandals as well.
The constitutional crisis is mentioned at the intro, though without details.
Of course we also need to mention the positive aspects of his governance (better access to services, family laws, social reconciliation, etc.).
His soft stance on terrorism is another important aspect that is often forgotten to be mentioned, but it was no less important. While not mentioned in the article, Athens was described a war-zone (or Cairo) after all the terrorist attacks and lack of investments by the end of 1980s and Papandreou's refusal to collaborate with Mitsotakis government resulted in Athens losing the chance to have the Olympic Games in 1996. Should this be at the intro? Probably not, but I found it fascinating. I only mention the "soft stance on terrorism".
Populism and patronage are important aspects of his governments.
I can go on (Liani, attacking the courts, the press, etc). In the end, there is not much space to cover everything at the intro. 400 words is too confining for a topic like this.

If you find a way to express the complexity of this controversial topic with the above mentioned constrains, I am ok with, but I would prefer to us to work it in a temporary page till a consensus is found or the GA review finished. A.Cython (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you make valid points and as stated before I applaud you for your work on an article about such a controversial personality. I will take these points into consideration and mostly chime in with random corrections so to not compromise the neutral POV the article is meant to embody. I don't have any particularly strong positive or negative opinion of Andreas Papandreou, but seeing a better wikipedia editor than I try to revitalize it into a good article piqued my interest.

Again, thanks for your time! Bill L. Hal (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, but I am not an experienced editor at least not until I have a couple FA article under my belt. I know that I have dominated the particular article lately, only I want to reach the GA milestone after which I want to disappear; I am exhausted by it. For me, the most important contribution in a WP article is the reference section. If you have a reliable source that provides a different description please share it in the talk page. Happy editing! A.Cython (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do know that it is a bit early for celebrations, but regardless, I congratulate you on the perilous work you have put in order to elevate the article to GA status. I think your rest away from wiki editing will be well deserved. Best regards. Bill L. Hal (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer is indeed very helpful and his edits are elevating the article. I also wanted to thank for the George Papandreou addition. I removed the last statement because it was without a reference. For the GA status, we need a reference at the end of each paragraph. If you can find a reference to support this, feel free to add it.A.Cython (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the comment. Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon

I do appreciate your copyright concerns. But I would point out that it is a list a technical terms, something that might fairly be covered by Scènes à faire. What would you suggest? I won't revert it, but there was no need to delete the entire contribution.NoontideDemon (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to describe everything in our own words as much as possible. Until this is cleared out that there are no violations in the rest of the text, the whole contribution is a suspect. WP takes copyright violations very seriously.A.Cython (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John George III

Seems like you a very interested in greek history, me too John George III (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added images on politician infoboxes

Hey and sorry for bothering you again. Since I see that you have temporarily returned, I want to ask about the newly added images on Konstantinos Karamanlis and Andreas Papandreou, while also mentioning the returning image in Georgios Papadopoulos' opening infobox. They look to be AI-upscaled, and per Wikipedia:AI guidelines, if such upscaling has truly happened, I do not think it is necessary, even if these politicians aren't living persons anymore. If you don't mind, I would like your thoughts on the matter. Bill L. Hal (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill L. Hal That is an excellent question for which I do not have a good answer. Figures/pictures are not my forte because I have limited understanding of how to navigate copyright issues, which is taken very seriously here and especially at Wikicommons. The specific photos that you meant is something that I have noticed myself. They are of higher resolution that the old ones, which is good and seem to have justification to deal copyright issues. However, some they look a little awkward. For example, Costas Simitis and Konstantinos Karamanlis, both changed by the same user, look weird to me, but maybe it is just me. Now regarding AI upscaling, this is something that I did not think about and I do not know much about. What we can do is to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Teahouse/About to get some feedback and if necessary raise the issue at the administrator noticeboard (if this is the right venue). The problem is that Wikipedia:AI guidelines provides vague and hard to interpret statements, e.g., AI upscaling might be an appropriate use of AI, depending on context. There are no examples or points of reference to compare and so it can mean anything. Let me know your thoughts. A.Cython (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Honestly, I do not think it is necessary, it is not like any of the pictures upscaled (bar maybe Papadopoulos' that was already replaced with the funny one with the sunglasses) weren't available anyway (to my knowledge). Also, for me, Simitis' infobox picture is borderline unsettling, it feels like it focuses too much on his facial characteristics in an odd shot, when the previously used one worked just fine in my opinion. Konstantinos Karamanlis' picture is, indeed, very weird looking, like the upscaling put way too much emphasis on the cheeks' characteristics. I would suggest reverting them to the previous pictures (provided they are still available with WikiCommons and whatnot) and raise the issue at Wikipedia:Teahouse/About as you proposed. Lend me your thoughts. Bill L. Hal (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked a guy at Wikicommons to double check the copyright justification for some of these pictures as find weird how navigates copyright; I am not an expert so asking someone that knows is preferable. I am also preparing a request for clarification at the Teahouse for AI upscaling since I have little knowledge about this issue and it is an opportunity to learn. After these two courses of action settle, then if the Simitis and Karamanlis portraits still there we could replace them on the grounds that are not suitable as portraits for the infobox citing reasons that we already mentioned, they look weird. My understanding one should choose portraits that are positive looking. A.Cython (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think those are reasonable courses of action. Mind you, I am also not knowledgeable on the subject, which is why I deferred to you in the first place. As for the last comment, I agree in principle, since this was, if I remember correctly, an issue with some celebrities having odd-looking portraits on their infoboxes on a similar premise: that the persons portrayed shouldn't look out of place or weird, unless deliberately shown (i.e. horror movie publicity stunts). I personally won't revert these edits just yet, but I look forward to your considerations. Bill L. Hal (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I reverted the profile pictures for C. Simitis and K. Karamanlis, based on the argument that they looked unnatural. If there are any other pictures that require attention let me know. I will continue to engage the community regarding the AI upscaling to learn more things about it. It seems in the future this will be a frequent topic of debate.A.Cython (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will await further information in the teahouse page whenever I check it again. On an unrelated note, do you see a result of the GA review for A. Papandreou anytime soon? Talk to you later. Bill L. Hal (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note to the reviewer, but this will take time. Most likely he/she assessing the references, which can a daunting process for articles like these. A.Cython (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the Andreas Papandreou article passed the review, and while I feel very proud of the work done, all the credit goes to you and the gargantuan effort that you made to make it from a mediocre article to a GA. I feel it also gives some closure to a very important personality, since information about him will now be more easily accessible and understandable for those that wish to learn about him and his policies. Hope you get to enjoy your rest. Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill L. Hal Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, it took a whole year since I started editing the article. But I am happy that there is some closure now. Though there are still few minor things to clean up. Eventually I want to work on the other Greek related articles, provided I find the time and enough reliable sources. A.Cython (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as you're doing the good effort, I'll probably be there in the background doing some minor corrections or adding a few already existing sources. At least the opening paragraph on Konstantinos Mitsotakis is better now and provides a summary of his political career.

In any case, you've earned this GA badge and I am happy to have at least been even a small part of the ride. Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, about K. Mitsotakis, I want to bring this to GA status as well (no idea when). I have already transferred a lot of material from Papandreou to Mitsotakis article, but most of this material is about Papandreou. They overlapped considerably these two, and you can see the similarities in the writing. I need to find more resources where Mitsotakis is the protagonist, but not as much has been written about him, at least in english that I can access. It will take time. If you plan to add material in Papandreou article, keep in mind that GA status is temporary and maybe lost if the article grows large. If possible add the new material to its child articles, e.g., Foreign policy of Andreas Papandreou, Economic policies of Andreas Papandreou etc. A.Cython (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'll try to slack off a bit less and see what I can do, there are many websites pointing out details anyway, but of course academic sources are more trustworthy. Last month you did put a lot of work in to revitalize Mitsotakis Sr's article, and if I can I think I should help you with that. Still, I commend you for all the work you poured into everything and if you feel you're pushing yourself, you can still take as many breaks as needed. Bill L. Hal (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Andreas Papandreou has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Andreas Papandreou has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bogazicili (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]