Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Let me be more clear: I see Guido den Broeder '''not''' as a collegue, with which I've a 'dispute'. I see him as an uneducadable vandal, with which we have problems at NL.wiki for years now. NL.wiki arbcom took severe measures against Guido. I'm '''not''' in a dispute, I'm just fighting against a vandal. This is not stuff for mediation, the question is if you like to help the vandal or not. ] (]) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:51, 16 April 2008
Hello GijsvdL! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just H00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please cease edit warring over the required attribution at Melody Thomas Scott. The link Mike Halterman is adding is not spam; it's the proper method of attribution as verified by the Foundation. Further reverting will be considered disruption and will be dealt with appropriately. krimpet✽19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please cease edit warring over the references at Melody Amber. The links that were reinserted by Jisis are not self-promotion; it's the proper method of providing sources to the article. Further reverting will be considered disruption and will be dealt with accordingly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the vandal in this case. NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against you, just because your shameless self promotion. GijsvdL (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you (User:Guido den Broeder) just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. Scarian09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(Copied and pasted from my talk page) Nej, Guido and Gijsvdl, it's your own choice on whether you edit chess articles or not but please be aware that both of your separate contributions will come under scrutiny. I have offered to mediate to prevent future blockings. If you show willingness to co-operate together and to accept peace and harmony into your lives on Misplaced Pages then that is very positive. By immediately dismissing my offer, Gijsvdl, you've shown that you don't want to work together. I recommend that the disputed content in question be analysed to remove any WP:POV, et al. Do you wish to do this or not? If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me be more clear: I see Guido den Broeder not as a collegue, with which I've a 'dispute'. I see him as an uneducadable vandal, with which we have problems at NL.wiki for years now. NL.wiki arbcom took severe measures against Guido. I'm not in a dispute, I'm just fighting against a vandal. This is not stuff for mediation, the question is if you like to help the vandal or not. GijsvdL (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
User talk:GijsvdL: Difference between revisions
Add topic