User talk:Benccc

Hey, thanks for your edits to Burning Man, dolly, and others. You seem to have found your way around.. but {{welcome}} also a nice place to start. See also WP:TRI for counterbalance. Stick around.. feel free to drop any questions my way. ∴ here…♠ 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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/Rick Warren, 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, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect that the Pulitzer Board could not write a paragraph acceptable to everyone. I am struggling to see the long step back in your rewrite. Kevin (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin. I've been through one WP editing negotiation before but nowhere near as exhausting. My one goal has been to add "which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry" to the mention of Prop 8, and while trying to persuade a couple of people that this addition will be helpful to the reader, I have ended up trying to help unstick other things that seem terribly stuck. Normally I'm good at facilitating this kind of thing, but in this case I've been having a hard time dragging specifics out of people. I'm glad for the presence of some admins. Benccc (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand it was not your intention your original post to Teledildonix has had a less than satisfactory result. I wonder if you could go back to that post and add some further appropriate words please?--VS ^talk 02:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up VirtualSteve. Benccc (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure.--VS ^talk 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts at organizing and coordinating the discussion have been most helpful. Thank you. Would you be willing to assist with the compiling of material for further discussion? Any suggestions would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assist as much as I can. I had envisioned we'd build a queue of specific points to resolve, with things grouped thematically (i.e. there may be four or five distinct points related to Prop 8, so they'd be grouped together and we'd work through them one by one before moving on to another group); shall I work on compiling such a queue, or do you have something else in mind?

Many of our disputes involve conformance to policies and guidelines, and many different policies and guidelines have been invoked, and I think a key to getting us unstuck will be to look at specific instances of this and take advantage of your understanding of policies and guidelines to help us resolve them. It's my hope that this process will help us do that. I don't see much buy-in yet, but I believe this process will produce results and the results will lead to buy-in, as long as everyone sees the process as fair. Benccc (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Go for it. I think that the more we can get participants to take over the better. In the end it will be the participants who resolve the dispute. You were the first to step up, but hopefully others will as well. I'm happy to provide policy interpretations, as needed. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benccc, thank you for using gentle language and polite words in the most conflicted circumstances. I wish i had your patience, i don't think i'm cut out for activities which require such an enormous level of continuous calmness, i can't seem to hold my feelings back when i try to say things. But you do so well, and i am grateful. It would be wonderful if more people (especially myself) could be as diplomatic. Somehow i suspect you have professional skills in real life which involve dealing patiently with all kinds of difficulty. People like you could make the greatest mediators and dispute resolution negotiators. You have my admiration. Have a pleasant weekend ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 07:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teledildonix314, thank you for your generous comment. Benccc (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work in the past couple of days, Benccc. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benccc, regarding a way to make progress more efficiently, i would like to consider this part of the formal Mediation policies:

In common cause a group of disputant users can, in consensus, choose to dispute through mediation with a single disputant or another disputant group. Disputant groups may choose a representative from amongst them to serve as a spokesperson. It is sometimes helpful to have a single voice that represents the group; however, it is possible to have a mediation where all disputants take part.

After so many weeks of covering a lot of the same ground, i am thinking that this could be a way to more efficiently reach our goal of writing an accurate biography. I've looked at the "Items to be Mediated" on the case project page, and i've been looking at the comments presented by you, me, and all the other participants. As far as i can tell, all of your suggestions and offerings have been generally parallel to my own, and it looks like we have an identical goal (a Neutral point of view, inclusion of a broad range of Reliable Sources, avoidance of any kind of whitewashing, avoidance of coatracking or belaboring any issues which are not strictly relevant and pertinent). Also i have been doing a lot of thinking about my own personal limitations in interpersonal communication, and about conflict resolution in general. I think it would be far more efficient for me to ask you to be "Representative" of my presence in the Mediation. If you accept, i would still follow along as usual, but i could simply let you do all the talking, as your comments always seem to be so much more level-headed and concise and Neutral than mine.

If you think this would work out well, i imagine our mediator Sunray would appreciate us proceeding thusly, for efficiency and expediency of reaching our goal of resolving Mediation to write the best article possible. Perhaps some of the other participants will also look at this as a way to streamline, so i will go to their TalkPages and mention this option. Thank you for all your patience and efforts; one way or another, i hope we can all reach a satisfactory conclusion of such a long process. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teledildonix314, you and I may not agree on everything, but if you have been satisfied by my comments and recommendations, I will be glad to accept that role. I will continue to post as I see fit, and why don't you periodically let me know whether you continue to support my contributions. Benccc (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. If i have reason to dispute something you write, i'll certainly say so; but up until now, your comments have been covering most of the same ground as mine, and yours are far more pithy, in a good way. I've also left a message to Mike Doughney about this kind of request for possible Representation in formal Mediation in case he decides to return, so we might combine all our efforts more efficiently. Good luck ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working out an excellent compromise in the most contentious subsection of that official Mediation! There's more work to be done on the other subsections, but i think that for your success so far, you all deserve some extra whipped~cream and a lovely berry~on~top!

~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thank you. Benccc (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Rick Warren (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		In appreciation of your civility, willingness to work on alternatives and patience in the Warren invocation mediation. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sunray! And thank you for guiding us through that mediation. Benccc (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Media planner, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Pacific Academy.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via live help, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Aaron Booth (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Pacific Academy, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Pacific Academy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benccc. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benccc. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]