User talk:AnnaBillung

Welcome!
Hello, AnnaBillung, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Otfried Nippold, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Links to katalog.burgerbib.ch
They are definitely not spam, but. On a given page, we may not add links to all libraries mentioning that person - this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and there are just too many such links. Why katalog.burgerbib.ch should be given an exception? Yes, biographies from katalog.burgerbib.ch are potentially useful, but they are unreferenced. Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon
 * Thank you very much for the quick reply! I understand you completely concerning the mentioning of the catalogues of libraries. However, I haven't articulated myself clearly enough: We aren't a library but an archive (even if it's in the name). We are not talking about books about/by those 10 mentioned people but rather a catalogue of unique personal papers (handwritten stuff, correspondence, testaments, diaries etc.) written BY the afore-mentionned people with Wikipedia articles. This source material doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. So I think for researchers this might be very valuable information. But maybe I ought to change the link description to make it clear:
 * New: "Personal papers and estate of [Name/Link] in the catalogue of the Burgerbibliothek of Berne". What do you think?
 * Thank you for your valuable insight. AnnaBillung (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Such links would be useful, if those documents were freely accessible online. Maybe this is my fault, but I can not quickly find links to those documents from your links. Can you show them, on example of one person? Materialscientist (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In this case, the situation is clear. The mentionned documents are available and accessible but only locally. They aren't digitalized. However, the catalogue shows meticulously what documents we have of the afore mentionned persons. Though we still think such links are important for the research community in order to see what personal papers exists in our archive (locally), we would accept your decision of not reactivating the changes we provided. AnnaBillung (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If you could claim that you listed all existing works of a given author, then your links would be valuable; but I guess you listed only works that are available via your archive. Then your pages are important, but only to (a relatively narrow group of) people who can physically access your archive. That said, when you make those works available online, you can add links to them on this Wiki. Best regards. Materialscientist (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)