User talk:Witger
Godfrey II, Count of Leuven
Godfrey II, Count of Leuven, which you created, has been nominated to be moved. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments here. Moonraker (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Please observe that closed discussions, be they about requested moves, article deletion or whatever, may not be modified or added to. If you wish to make a statement regarding the topic, it should be made below the colored box enclosing the old discussion. Favonian (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Counts of Louvain: new move request
Hi Witger, just a courtesy-message to inform you to I have submitted a move request of "Counts of Louvain" to "Counts of Leuven". You can find my reasoning here: Talk:Counts_of_Louvain. Kind regards, Morgengave (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Congratulations, Witger, on recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!
Thank you for improving and expanding the coverage of medieval and early modern European history, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
External links
Hi Witger, your persistent posting of external links to the social networking page of Frans Van Droogenbroeck on a variety of Wikipedia articles about early medieval topics is an unusual way to help build a collaborative encyclopedia. Could you provide some rationale for these links, which at first sight seem to be directly opposed to the guideline at Wikipedia:External links? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Andreas Philopater, after checking Wikipedia:External links, I looks to me that the prevaling guidelines are not violated. Don't you have nothing else to do? Witger
- I have plenty to do, so you can understand my reluctance to have to deal with this. I've been told by another user that the links you are inserting are "blatant spamming", and have to admit that it does look like spam. You can understand how undesirable a spammy encyclopedia is. Could you explain why these links shouldn't be considered so? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Andreas, sorry for the (over)hasty reaction. The contribution to the Wikipedia article was certainly not intended to be "spammy". The attached weblinks simply refer to a webpage where the concerned scientific article can be found in PDF format. If there would be a way of loading up a similar PDF in a Wikipedia article instead, I would have done so (and probably no one would have complained). Please understand that the reader of a Wikipedia article may be very well heuristically served in this way. Anyway, we simply wanted to be helpful in providing essential source material to the article, in order to guide interested readers straight to the specialized historiographic literature. I am sure you'll understand now. Thanks anyway for your kind intervention. Witger
- I have plenty to do, so you can understand my reluctance to have to deal with this. I've been told by another user that the links you are inserting are "blatant spamming", and have to admit that it does look like spam. You can understand how undesirable a spammy encyclopedia is. Could you explain why these links shouldn't be considered so? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)