Talk:Ancient Kymissala

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

..You are messing with things you obviously do not understand. An archaeological site with international research -almost a century- is not and cannot be considered of local importance. Sorry but please be informed on what is importance--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalogeropoulos: Sigh... Could you please have a look at the importance scheme in the respective WikiProjects? Pretty please? Then you would see that this scheme is relative, i.e. a world-renowned site, e.g. the Pyramids of Giza, would be "Top"; a well-known, recognized and important site, e.g. a UNESCO heritage site, would be "High", etc. to "Low", which is precisely for local stuff that, while important in their context, have not acquired any broader notability. You cannot compare a local dig, no matter how extensive, fascinating and informative in itself, with matters that are of fundamental importance within each project. WPGreece has some nice examples of what I am talking about here. Rating them as "Low" in importance is not disparaging their importance in the real world, it is simply an internal, Wikipedia- and WikiProject-specific way of ranking articles by (relative) prominence for reasons of simply managing them an assigning them a priority. Please trust me that I understand "things" very well, and "obviously", since I've been around enwiki about ten years longer than you with several thousand articles under my belt, am far better acquainted with what these ratings are, how they work, and what they (are supposed to) mean. And again, although I really don't like getting in disputes over so trivial a thing as WikiProject assessments, please come off your high horse. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, WP:AGF is a core policy, and WikiProject assessments are really not that important to warrant your rude tone. Constantine ✍ 23:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm not writting under Wikiprojects schemes and I dont think I got time for this. Of course it's you on a high horse if you consider your self matcho with several thousand articles under your belt. Why you mention this at fisrt place? You have edited thousands, I've written and edited thousands of articles so what? Anyway I got no time for ironies and attacks of this kind and behave your self please. I dont think you really know what wikipedia and collaboration is and I think your intervention is quite disruptive--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not looking to get into a fight with you, and I appreciate tremendously the fact that you write these articles. I've explained why your concept of importance is not what these tags are about, but instead of calming down and accepting that this was a misunderstanding, you accuse me of disruption and machismo. If you cannot see how "You are messing with things you obviously do not understand" both here and on the previous occasion is dismissive, unwarranted and rude to someone who is merely trying to help and explain, not to speak of the latest broadside, then there is indeed no room for discussion.... Cheers and good night. Constantine ✍ 00:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Kymissala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancient Kymissala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]