User talk:Witger
Godfrey II, Count of Leuven
[edit]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
[edit]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!
[edit]
|
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) |
External links
[edit]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 suspected that might be the case. I pinged you in this discussion, where you will see an example of a link that goes to a resource rather than to a profile. As stated there, I myself would have less objection to such links, but I do not know what the consensus among other editors would be. In one of your cases (which did take a a few minutes of Googling on my part), that would mean linking to the resource https://www.academia.edu/4610345/ rather than to the profile https://independent.academia.edu/FransVanDroogenbroeck --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. I will change the weblinks accordingly. Witger
- I suspected that might be the case. I pinged you in this discussion, where you will see an example of a link that goes to a resource rather than to a profile. As stated there, I myself would have less objection to such links, but I do not know what the consensus among other editors would be. In one of your cases (which did take a a few minutes of Googling on my part), that would mean linking to the resource https://www.academia.edu/4610345/ rather than to the profile https://independent.academia.edu/FransVanDroogenbroeck --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:26, 13 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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adeliza of Louvain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brabant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Palatinate of Lotharingia has been nominated for merging
[edit]
Category:Palatinate of Lotharingia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
disambiguation pages
[edit]From the edit in Conflation (disambiguation) I suspect you are from German Wikipedia. Please get familiar with our (enwiki) rules of disambiguation, see WP:DAB and MOS:DAB and do not revert to an incorrect page. --Altenmann >talk 09:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Ways to improve Conflation (statistics)
[edit]Hello, Witger,
Thank you for creating Conflation (statistics).
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Tiny article, and the subject technique is apparently discouraged "... Unfortunately, conflation generates a joint density that suffers from a mean-biased expected value and an overly optimistic standard deviation. This shortcoming is satisfactorily solved by the coalescense method...." Suggest merge into Coalescence (statistics), which is the superior technique, and leave a REDIRECT here.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Noleander (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hi Witger. Thank you for your work on Conflation (statistics). Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Tiny article, sources not that great, and the subject technique is apparently discouraged "... Unfortunately, conflation generates a joint density that suffers from a mean-biased expected value and an overly optimistic standard deviation. This shortcoming is satisfactorily solved by the coalescense method...." Suggest merge into Coalescence (statistics), which is the superior technique, and leave a REDIRECT here.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Noleander (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. Conflation is indeed different from the concept of coalescence.
- Conflation multiplies the likelihood of merged propositions, e.g. Prob(merger)= A*B. This (logic) rule is derived from to the joint probability of single propositions (sometimes called "Multiplication Rule").
- Coalescence determines the probability of merging distributions. In that case, each record of the distribution respects: Prob(merger) = A*B/(A+B).
- Please leave the pages as they are. Take your time to read the article once more. Sources are indeed not great at all. I checked the statistic literature thoroughly and only found a few remarks about deficiencies of the conflation method. Thanks again. Witger (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)