User talk:A.Cython

DYK for Andreas Papandreou

On 3 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andreas Papandreou, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, under the governments of Andreas Papandreou (pictured), any Greek citizen raising political criticisms against him was considered a national security threat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andreas Papandreou. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Andreas Papandreou), 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 nominate it.

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 24,428 views (1,017.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Auximus (539)

Here are the notes that I took while carefully re-reading this article. I think that a GA reviewer would be likely to make comments and ask for changes in line with these comments. While I don't rule out that I may have misunderstood a few points, I think work is needed to get this to GA and in fact to satisfy criterion b2 for B class. (Yet, b1 appears to be met as it now stands.) Note, as I put on the assessment page, my time online will be limited for next several days.

The phrase “a day from Ravenna” should be clarified; is it a day's march (which in turn might lead to the question of the number of miles and kilometers)

The context for “lifted the siege of Rome” could be explained. Why did the siege of Rome “lead to a Byzantine victory” at Arminium. Because the garrison there was undermanned?

After Belisarius took Arminium, apparently Witigis returned to besiege the Byzantines there in turn. And Narses apparently joined the Byzantines despite the siege at an unspecified date but this is not clear.

The “psychological warfare tactics” used by Belisarius to break the siege at Arminium could be more precisely definied. The link to the article about these tactics provides only general information, not exactly what Belisarius did.

How did the division of Byzantine leadership lead to the destruction of Milan. Forces in the wrong place? Divided forces not strong enough to contest the Gothic attack? Some other reason? Whatever it was, Narses was apparently blamed at least in part leading Narses to be recalled and Belisarius to be given sole command of the Byzantine forces. This should be mentioned with some more detail.

“a well-fortified town atop a hill about 275 m (902 ft) above the sea and it was approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) from the sea” - sentence structure needs revision.

Who were Martin and John? There is no link to these names and they are not otherwise identified.

Camps “too far apart to send reinforcements” needs clarification such as “for the Byzantines to send reinforcements to camps under attack.” In I am reading this correctly when this is followed a sentence or two later with “The Goths were caught by surprise by the speed of the Byzantine army” a possible contradiction with the preceding sentence and the camps being too far apart needs to be clarified

Out of the blue, the Franks enter Italy to attack both the Goths and the Byzantines. When exactly in the sequence of events did this occur and what effect did it have on the siege of Auximus specifically?

The following seems to need some clarification or rewording: “Khosrow I, the Persian leader (shah), began to deteriorate Byzantine-Sassanian relations to start war. Diplomats sent by the Goths arrived in Persia to request that the shah start hostilities with the Byzantine Empire. Recognizing these treats (treaties? Which the Persians apparently acted on?) the Byzantines tried to make peace with the Goths since for Justinian as the Persians posed more dire threat than the Goths (and transferring Belisarius to the eastern front).”

“more strict guarding” - vigilance would seem to be a better word since the failure was not in the guarding of the camp but in allowing messengers from the city to get through to Witigis.

“the defenders requested help from their king. They succeeded this by loudly shouting...” needs clarification. Also, since the preceding subsection moves away from the siege specifically, it should be noted that the “food shortages” were “at Auximus.”

“However, this allowed” - add “diversion” after “this”?

“keeping the morale of the defenders high” seems to be the wrong phrase in context. Might it be simply “to provide relief to the garrison.”

“which also helped end the siege of Auximus” - because there was also a famine at Auximus or because the Byzantines were reinforced or both?

Common words such as “treasury” do not need links to articles about the subject in general.

You can ask another reviewer to step in if I do not get back to this in what seems like a timely manner or if you think that some of my points are mistaken. As to the mistaken, we can actually discuss them here instead, but again with the caveat that I may not be able to get back to this for more than a week. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 I think I have addressed all your comments. Once you are back from your break, let me know your thoughts. A.Cython(talk) 01:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, by the way

At first when I read your initial notes, my first thought was, "fuck", and I'll leave your imagination for the tone in my head. But you're right. I was shaving the roast too close to the bone lately and forgetting presentation. My more relaxed stuff is like this, this or this. This major project I've been wrangling is now I'm seeing having the same small tonal problem that I let slip into Zirconic, rushing through it all too fast. But then on Amrom Harry Katz, I didn't rush it. It's weird to see now. It's like both types are fine/can be GA+, but one doesn't feel right. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person Apologies if my comments felt weird to you. I am happy to help to bring the article to GA status. My opinion is that it needs the extra mile, mostly in tackling some narrative holes/questions. I am not the most experienced editor/reviewer and I might do a mistake or two, but I have good intentions :) A.Cython(talk) 00:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, all good. Whether you intended to or not, sometimes everyone needs a "look what you did!" shake. It's a good thing! And thanks. :) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Ariminum (538) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Ariminum (538) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ajay Platinum -- Ajay Platinum (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Ariminum (538) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Ariminum (538) 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 Ajay Platinum -- Ajay Platinum (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Contest entries

I have changed Siege of Verona from stub to start. Military history project ratings take precedence over all other ratings for the contest and other purposes because of the assessment differences permitted for this project (only). The overall rating should have been changed in 2022 but the bots have at times missed this at lower rating. CEWBOT will now give this project's rating as the overall rating when (if?) it sees it.

I have removed the entry for Siege of Milan. It was assessed in December and eligible to claimed in that month. Intervening and unnecessary changes in the bot's assessment do not make it eligible from a lower entry class in January to an already proper assessment in December. That is one reason why it is advisable to make a tentative entry before the end of the month and let it be checked for accuracy and adjusted accordingly by the reviewer - who is almost always a coordinator or former coordinator. The entry could be confirmed before the end of the month or deferred to the next month depending on the date of the requested assessment is finished. Asking for a human assessment before the end of the month has resulted in a few entries being eligible in a later month if the assessment is not posted in the month of the request.

Another option is simply to keep an eye on the assessments of articles (by the bot most likely) near the end of the month to be sure an assessment has not been made. Admittedly, that might prove difficult to keep up with.

These fine details and nuances are not necessarily evident to new contestants.

As I often mention, if you think I have made a mistake, misinterpretation or other misunderstanding, feel free to ask Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 (a former lead coordinator and current emeritus coordinator) or other coordinator for another opinion and we can take another look at any of these assessments or opinions.

You are doing quite well for this month in any event. Absent someone making a similar and slightly higher overall points effort, you are now on your way to a high finish this month. Donner60 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 Apologies, I did not know the rules well enough. Thank you for making the changes and explaining the rules to me. I think the friendly competition helps with motivation to do more for WP, but only if it is fair to everyone. A.Cython(talk) 13:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. The wording of the rules is not entirely clear. When I became a coordinator, I asked Peacemaker67 to explain a few of the fine points. I could see the interpretations and applications were not necessarily obvious. I think it may not even be clearly stated that if a request is made close to the end of the month but not acted upon, it can be applied retroactively to the same month - if that month has not been closed yet or carried over to the next month if it has. That exception, which is small and only has applied to a few situations while I have been the coordinator regularly closing the contest for a few years is not obvious at all. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Donner60 I am planning to help as I can in the MHWP because I intent to work on several articles, which will eventually require assessment. If however I misstep somewhere, please do not hesitate to nudge me and remind me the rules and customs of the project. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 04:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I noticed your edit on Battle of Taginae and using Ilkka Syvänne as a source. Just so you know, there was a discussion concerning Syvänne as a reliable source here. Hopefully this keeps you from being blindsided.

Take care, A.Cython. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Thanks for letting me know, but from reading the sources, the arguments presented by Syvänne make a lot more sense. If I am not mistaken, the book by Syvänne is an extension of his PhD and thus valid academic source and thus WP:RS. I do not judge WP:RS based on Amazon reviews, but on the quality of the arguments presented. Even notable historians make terrible or even silly mistakes, even when published at notable publishers. Only the other day, I rejected a GAN because a book from the "Routledge" publisher made an enormous and unacceptable error by claiming that a political party in Greece is centrist when everyone knows that it was far right; it was shocking. So does this mean books from "Routledge" are of low quality?
Another example, it appears incomprehensible when historians say without much good reasoning that the Ostrogoths marched to Rome (537–538) with only 25,000 men (while contemporary Procopius gave 150,000); not to mention everyone is giving different numbers, is it 50,000, 40,000, 25,000, or 20,000. Syvänne does not provide a number but argues that there is no real basis to doubt Procopius's number (meaning that it might be 100,000 or something similar) based on the traditions of the Goths (i.e., all Goth men participated in the army and Gothic strategy was to create one massive army to deal each enemy), which apparently all other historians ignored to mention (should we think of them less of them). So in this instance, Syvänne's argumentation appears more convincing than any other historian that I have read on this topic.
It is insulting when a historian rejects a primary source and rewrites history based on the argument that it makes sense to that particular historian (i.e., no real argument provided), and it is worse when this is coming from top institutions. In one of the reviews, it says that classicists constructed the lower number based on some methodology, making it superior. While in science we have nature to evaluate a proposed methodology, in history such methodologies are only valid so long a small group of academics says so, irrespective whether it is true or not, since evidence is hard to come by.
Yet, such academic consensuses are challenged all the time since these numbers/methods are difficult to evaluate and often rely on subjective interpretations of each historian. Take for example the book about the existence of Amazons, where historians even refused archaeological evidence (some still do) because they were educated that Amazons were imaginary figures of Ancient Greek men. So when burial grounds of warriors (buried with weapons and their horses) were examined, it was found that 1/3 of the graves had smaller skeletons; the historians said these skeletons belonged to small men. However, later it was revealed from DNA testing that these were actually women. Strangely, some of these historians still refute the DNA analysis. This reflects very badly on the review, accusing Syvänne of a lack of evidence, when historians themselves reject evidence. Go figure. There are many such examples in history in which historians weave stories to reinforce their social and nationalist identities, contrary to the evidence. More recently, Anthony Kaldellis that has some fans in WP claims that two centuries of Byzantine studies needs to be thrown out of the window (no small thing) because the word "Byzantine" is a construction only to serve political purposes and proposes the completely purge of the word from everywhere; for him Byzantine Empire is just a Roman Empire and nothing else, see his latest book; there was an extensive discussion at Rhomaioi (endonym) article (former Byzantine Greeks), where the rename was done based on Kaldellis's minority position.
At least Syvänne makes it clear (in the parts I have read) that when it is his opinion, he says it is an educated guess. Historian J. B. Bury, who is used extensively in WP, also does that, and many other historians too. This is again not a reason to disqualify the book. Irrespective of Syvänne's arguments, my approach is to be inclusive by adding all other historians (as many as I can find) in the articles and trying to explain their reasoning whenever such is given. Syvänne's work appears valid (certainly not perfect) to me and is no different from other WP:RS. Either way, we write based on numerous sources from different authors. Also note that Syvänne's book is one of the very few that provide details of the battles/sieges necessary for this type of articles, otherwise I have to rely more on primary sources, which is not a good idea. IMO, the attacks on Syvänne appear more like exclusion tactics in the academic-publishing industry, whether in WP we amplify these tactics remains to be seen; I am familiar with the publishing industry (not history), where sometimes acts worse than the politicians that you see on TV, which is a reminder that we all are human with follies. Anyhow, thank you again for letting me know. Happy editing. A.Cython(talk) 20:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Auximus is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Auximus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Constantinople (1235–1236) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Constantinople (1235–1236) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

FA review of Rule of inference

Hello A.Cython and thanks for your recent peer review of the article Rule of inference. I've nominated the article for FA status, but it hasn't received enough reviews so far, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in providing some feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rule of inference/archive1. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 I will try to have a look over the weekend, but no promises. Your article is very well written and I will struggle to provide comments as I am not experienced in judging nominations for FA articles. In either case, I wish you good luck, you deserved it with the amount of work that placed to write it on such a challenging topic. A.Cython(talk) 06:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the article is also intended for general readers, having non-expert feedback would be helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Auximus has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Auximus 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Siege of Naples (536) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Siege of Naples (536) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Gothic War articles

Moved here as the conversation was getting well off the original topic.

That's awesome! Well, not sure which one is closer to ACR so feel free pick the one(s) you feel look best out of the following four. Any advice you give will most helpful in improving all the other articles.

• Siege of Ariminum (538) (1375 words) is currently GA and it has some interest to the reader as it has unique story: beating a numerically superior besieging force without a fight. Though it is the smaller article of the four.
• Siege of Ravenna (539–540) (2042 words) currently GAN, it also has a unique plot twist: Belisarius refused the purple as a way to capture the city without a fight. At some point I want to write a "Scholarly assessment" section and summarize some comments by historians (unbroken loyalty to the emperor but disobeyed orders and also political consequences), so you may ignore this one...
• Siege of Auximus (2382 words) GA status since yesterday. Not the highlight of the Gothic War but it has some interesting aspects beyond the battle engagement itself.
• Battle of Taginae (2858 words) overhauled last week (probably the longest article of the child articles so far, but it might have some wriggles that need to be ironed first), I am planning to submit for B-class later today and then GAN.

Again, many thanks in advance for your time in helping. I am looking forward to your the comments at my talk page or at the article's talk page. A.Cython(talk) 18:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Let's go with Ariminum. It has already had eyes on it at GAN, and once done will let us roll straight into Ravenna as a follow up article. How would you like to handle things? A full collaboration? Me providing a rough idea of what needs improving or adding and leaving you to it? Something else? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Ariminum it is then. Never done collaboration before, so you need to tell me how this done in terms of sharing credit, which I am happy to do so. As for contributions, for me the priority is to elevate the articles and learning how to improve an article beyond GA. So perhaps telling what changes need to be done (and I will do them) would be the most instructive. However, if you feel that directly making the changes is the most efficient way, then do so and I will figure out the rationale behind the changes. A.Cython(talk) 19:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's tentatively make it a collaboration, subject to revision once we find out how things actually work between us. Credit - we both get full credit for any collaborations we take to GAN, ACR or FAC. Eg, 4 of my 77 FACs to date were collaborations, but I still have 77 FAs to my credit.

• Task 1. I feel that the article should start with a proper "Background" section, setting the scene and briefly explaining the historical, er, background. Maybe one paragraph on: Italy was once Roman, Rome survived in the east, ambitious young emperor. Then one on conquests of Tunisia and Sicily, capture of Naples and Rome, siege of Rome, other simultaneous operations. The first of these in particular needs to be good, as it will get reused in all of the subsequent articles. Write this up in a sandbox or create a draft. No, let's make it one of mine as I have page mover rights - User:Gog the Mild/Siege of Ariminum (538). The fun part: don't use any primary sources; and use 100-year-old-plus sources - yes, Bury - as little as you possibly can, ideally none at all. You ok to have a go at that? Or I could do it - I have several modern general histories of the period which would be up to it. To get an idea of what I have in mind, have a look at the Background sections of the FAs Battle of Morlaix and Battle of Winwick.
• We ought to say something about the primary sources. See the "Primary sources" section of Punic Wars for an idea of what I am thinking of - although we can be quite a bit briefer if we want. Again, do you fancy doing this?
• I note that you have your preferences set to not receive emails. That is fine, but we would be able to exchange sources if you were to toggle it.

Any questions? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's proceed with a collaboration and many thanks for giving examples to look at. I will try to write a draft for these new sections according to your advise, it will take few days maybe a week to prepare something. Then you can rewrite/improve as you see fit.

• For the background section, an overarching historical narrative makes sense, and it won't be difficult to rely exclusively on modern secondary sources since most of them do this; the challenge was to find the details of the battle engagements as these are typically skipped.
• Primary sources, well as far as I know, there is only one by Procopius. Overall, he is considered reliable for narrating the sequence of the events though he has been accused to be favoring Belisarius over other commanders, placing emphasis on mounted combat over the role of infantry, possibly inflating some (army size or casualties) numbers for propaganda purposes, and of course being on the side of Byzantines. So yes, I see why we need to talk about the primary sources. A.Cython(talk) 22:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• You may find this interesting as background for the Primary sourcess ection. It focuses on the east, not Italy, but you should be able to mine some helpful quotes, such as "This case again illustrates how Procopius’ interpretations of his material should be treated with caution." "Scholars rightly regard Procopius’ account of military matters as remarkably reliable." "there is Procopius’ firm belief in the “idea of Rome,” which makes him presume basic Roman superiority to all barbarians". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, i will read it tonight. I am currently reading two other sources that focus exclusively on Procopius. I will post them once i am back to my desktop (current reply by mobile) later today and hopefully provide a summary as the basis for an expansion. A.Cython(talk) 20:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild These are the two sources that I am reading:

  1. Evans, J.A.S., 1970. Justinian and the historian Procopius. Greece & Rome, 17(2), pp. 218-223
  2. Cameron, A., 2006. Procopius and the sixth century. Routledge.

  I just added them to the temporary page as well. I will add a summary later today (I hope). A.Cython(talk) 22:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

January 2026 Military History Writing Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your outstanding performance - 11 articles, 2 brought to GA class, and 56 points - and a first place finish in the January 2026 military history writing contest with this award of the WikiChevrons. Congratulations, Donner60 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)