User talk:Bahnheckl

Bahnheckl (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

References for nondualism

Bahnheckl, come on; a link to another Wikipedia-article for references is not-done. Try better! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the information in one place instead of copying it from the other article. If you say this is standard WP practice however, I will abide... Thanks for the comment! Bahnheckl (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... I don't think it's standard Wiki-policy - that is, the copying of chunks of text. The copying of sources is, though. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Greece and Rome project assessment

Could I ask what you're basing your importance ratings on? Aulus Gellius is of high importance? Carmen Arvale is of mid importance? If that isn't a low importance article, what is? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at that one wrong. You did give it a low. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

O sure, Aulus Gellius is important because of the fact that he has handed down many fragments from ancient sources otherwise lost. That might be more important to the area of Classics than any general audience, though. Maybe I should have left more comments in the comments... If there are any specific ratings you would like to discuss, I'd be happy to help. I have tried to follow the Assessment page, and used whatever I know from my BA in Classics to answer the rating. They may be off for a few articles, I agree... Bahnheckl (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, how do these discussions work, am I supposed to post a copy to your talk page as well? (still kinda new to this thing) Bahnheckl (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I usually watch the editor's talk page and respond where I left the message. Some editors post a notice at the top of their talk page letting visitors know whether they'll answer you on your own page, or reply there. Sometimes they might suggest you take the discussion elsewhere, such as an article or project talk page.

I don't care that much about importance ratings (I just saw your numerous evaluations turning up on my watchlist), but because you left this edit summary, I'll note that List of Roman gladiator types got 18,230 visits last month, while the delightful Aulus Gellius received only 2,191. The main Gladiator article got 201,303 hits, almost as many as Roman Empire (297,027). I'm not at all saying that traffic determines importance; just pointing out that what a classicist might find important isn't necessarily what general readers will seek in the encyclopedia. Since importance ratings are a way for project members to prioritize their work (a high-importance article that's start or C-class needs attention ASAP), traffic is one factor to consider. For instance, last time I looked Spartacus had replaced Julius Caesar as the Greece & Rome project's most-visited article, presumably because of the TV series (one factor also in gladiator interest generally. If Spartacus were crap, we wouldn't be serving our readers. I learned to edit Wikipedia by working on utterly obscure things, so these kinds of considerations are a fairly recent development for me. It's good to have these unassessed articles evaluated. Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How enlightening! I'll involve the number of visits form now on. As for Gellius, I guess you're right: not a lot of readers outside of Classics will read his article. By the way, could you tell my why the project doesn't list my edits (even after the bot has run)? Bahnheckl (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the autogenerated table that shows the ratings for article under the project's aegis? I seem to recall that it takes a while for the results to show up. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. However, even the things I changed before it ran weren't added (See the log and the bot help). Maybe they'll show up at a later date. It would be nice to have the overview now though, for clarity's sake... Bahnheckl (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, I think I understand now. The bot must use "old" data that's stored somewhere... Bahnheckl (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bahnheckl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot_requests.
Message added by Theopolisme at 19:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bahnheckl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot_requests.
Message added by Theopolisme at 15:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bahnheckl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot_requests.
Message added by Theopolisme at 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ptolemy (son of Philip), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrianus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

When you were assessing articles for Classical Greece & Rome, weren't you using a bot to assess articles within certain parameters? I've stubbornly never used a bot, but I've glanced through Category:Unknown-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles, rated those I thought ought to be other than low-importance, and thought it might be a fairly simple matter to auto-assess all the articles remaining in that category as "low". Cynwolfe (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course! I'll tell you what to do. First, go to the bot request page, and make a request stating the exact criteria of your article set, and how they should be labeled. (It might be a good idea to link my earlier request here) Most likely a user called Theopolisme will respond. If you'd prefer however, I can do all of this for you. Bahnheckl (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. be mindful of the fact that in bot language "Unknown-Importance articles", means the articles that belong to both "unknown importance" and "unknown class" as well! Bahnheckl (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Davidiad had another suggestion that I'm planning to look into as well. May be longer than I expected getting into it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey y'all. Just let me know what I can do! Also: a message on my talk page is fine, if you don't want to go through the BOTREQ hassle. Theopolisme (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested selective AWB editing, but if Theo's game, then that's the path ...  davidiad { t } 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)