Talk:Madnasa

'''This article is not written within the scope of any wikiproject. Importance of any archaeological site is determined by localities as contributing to the sustainable future of archaeological sites''' --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Is this matcho exhibition once more? Wikiprojects are not compulsory, not even mandatory --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Besides, Aren't the ratings subjective? Yes, they are. Then why you use it?--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please have a look around Wikipedia and see how the WikiProject thing works in practice. Yes it is not mandatory, but by its content alone, an article automatically belongs to one or more projects and can be tagged so by any user. The author of an article does not own it nor the talk page. If you disagree with an assessment, just like with any edit, you are free to dispute it. Of course there is a subjective element to it, but there is also a guideline to get a rough idea. So while e.g. one might argue if something is "Low" or "Mid" important, or "Start" and "Stub", there is certainly a clear difference between "High" and "Low" importance, or a "start" article and a "GA" article. Blanket reverting the tags because you disagree with them and calling others names is definitely not the way to go around voicing your disagreement, however. Constantine  ✍  21:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The author of an article does not own it nor the talk page. It seems to me that you don't understand that any article is not property of any editor either. So pls dont patronize me with declarations of this kind and don't let wikipedia look like a template's and wikiproject's dictatorship. I think you're clever enough to undestand it--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)