User talk:Benwm

Welcome!

Hello, Benwm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I note that you mark most of your edits as "minor". Please don't do so. A minor edit is a correction of a typo, or removal of an extra linefeed. Deleting or changing a sentence is not a minor edit. See WP:minor. Greetings, --93.106.162.51 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks I will be more careful here.

Increasing need to subdivide the Tobin tax article: your input wanted in discussion

There is an increasing need to subdivide the Tobin tax article: your input is wanted in discussion. Wikipedia policy requires a consensus on this discussion.

Please click here to go to the discussion. Thanks. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Greetings Benwm:

Thank you for your contributions. However, this discussion you started indicates that you are still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Please see the above links about the "five pillars of Wikipedia" etc.

So far, I regard your edits in "good faith." (see this link: Wikipedia:Assume good faith)

However, I want to encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before you make hasty deletions:

About the Soapbox policy:

This Wikipedia policy states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

Wikipedia policy does allow us to record what authors have said on an issue, even if the author "advocates" one position or another. But what Wikipedia does not allow is for us ourselves to advocate for something. There is a difference between recording the advocacy of others, and doing one's own advocacy.

Please familiarize yourself with the above Wikipedia policy before making hasty deletions in the Tobin tax article. Thank you.

Also, all deletions should be accompanied with a link to the Wikipedia policy (in your Edit Summary) which supports your decision to make a deletion.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boyd

Perhaps it was little unfair to 'out' you like I did, so I pull back for now.

You have said that you are not aligned with the Halifax Institute and that is good enough for me, I will also regard your edits in good faith. I will accompany all deletions with a link in future as you are correct on this point.

Benwm (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Benwm:

I think that there is still some confusion here: Minor deletions that are clearly and obviously justified by Wikipedia policy are warranted. But if Wikipedia editors are not sure whether or not the deletions are warranted, then a discussion should occur before the deletion.

Therefore, I invite you to participate in the following two discussions on the Tobin tax page. Talk:Tobin_tax#Is_Ellen_Frank_a_questionable_source.3F and Talk:Tobin_tax#Is_the_Halifax_Initiative_a_questionable_source.3F

I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia, being the helpful community that it is, has provided this noticeboard so that we can get other editors opinions on this issue. With all due respect, I suggest that we bring this issue to the noticeboard before we delete every reference to Ellen Frank in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.

I would also like to point out that Wikipedia policy suggests that discussion occur before major deletion, not after a deletion. See this link: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss which contains this quote:

"Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. ...

Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]