User talk:CormHamster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi CormHamster, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

  • Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
  • Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The Image:Signature_icon.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Good luck, and have fun. --Yahel Guhan 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Jihad Watch

enter the discussion before making edits please Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Warning, March 2008

I warn you about gaming 3RR with respect to multiple reverts for essentially the same edit. Most admins, like myself, will regard them as disruption. This has been mentioned in a recent discussion at [1] DGG (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have not violated the 3RR, and am not "gaming" it. I pledged in the discussion to follow the rules of the site. I believe the other party is being unreasonable, and certainly the 3RR rule should apply equally to both of us. CormHamster (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
if you follow the rules from here on in, there should be no problem. That's why this is just a warning. Making the same edit once a day for multiple days, when there is no evident consensus, is edit warring by whoever does it. DGG (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
At least be honest, you pledged to "I will operate within the rules of the site. Nothing more, nothing less. CormHamster (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC" that seems to be a commitment to push the rules as far as you can, without caring about compromise or the spirit of the rules. You want the 3RR rule to apply equally? one problem there, in a 3 day period you made twice as many reverts as I did on the article in question, perhaps for the equality that you strive for, you should be making an equal amount of reverts. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but who cares if you "believe" me to be unreasonable, this is not about what you believe, this is about consensus, and just because you think everyone against you has an agenda, does not mean you can ignore consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Please see my remarks on consensus in the Jihad Watch discussion area. I used the phrasing "I believe" in the interest of diplomatic wording, but I see that phraseology has created some confusion. And in saying "I will operate within the rules of the site, nothing more, nothing less," I meant I would not surrender the resources available to me just because you want the discussion to end. I will respect the rules of the site in letter and in spirit, and not knowingly overstep-- that was the "nothing more" part.
Now, I have proposed a compromise link at the JW discussion. I hope you will consider it. CormHamster (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jihad Watch, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Yahel Guhan 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jihad Watch.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] informal mediation on Anti:Muslim sentiment catogory for Jihad Watch: interested?

Hi, as a party to the debate on whether to include or exclude Jihad Watch from Category: Anti-Islam sentiment I am inviting you to place your name on the list of those editors who are seeking MedCab (Mediation Cabal) informal mediation. (The request for formal mediation was rejected.)

The benefits: you get to put your side forward with a neutral party making sure that protocols are followed, also you'll get to learn more about dispute resolution and how to use it and finally if a resolution is not reached then the issue is likely to be accepted for formal mediation and then if necesssary more authorative processes. Here is where to sign on; Editors_willing_to_enter_MedCab_mediation_on_Cat:Anti-Islam_sentiment. Thanks SmithBlue (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that mediation on the in/ex -clusion of Jihad Watch from Cat Anti-Muslim sentiment is now happenning. SmithBlue (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Just a suggestion, you may wish to enable your email user feature in your preferences. Yahel Guhan 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)