User talk:GijsvdL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Edit warring over attribution
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)
- You could at least have prevented a revert at Commons by proper use of the edit summary. GijsvdL (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Melody Amber
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)
- Suit yourself, keep lying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Melody Amber chess tournament
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. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:21, 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 Wikipedia 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. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- User:Scarian/Med1 - Started here. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:08, 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)
- The above information is false. Please check with nl:Arbcom. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:56, 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:Scarian/Med1 - Started here. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Guido den Broeder
Since you are involved in a dispute with Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) over WP:COI and mediation appears to have failed, I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I would like to ask you to join the discussion, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Guido den Broeder vs. others. AecisBrievenbus 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you can read above, I'm not in a dispute with Guido den Broeder. GijsvdL (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do you feel about the article Vereniging Basisinkomen? Migdejong (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)