User talk:Beckyvolley

Welcome!

Hello, Beckyvolley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Dreadlocke ☥ 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Diamond Trade Act

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you --Kim D. Petersen 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of wikipedia. I am not making multiple reversions in an edit war. I have made some changes that fall fully within wikipedia guidelines that have been improperly reverted without discussion. In some of those cases, I have made smaller changes that I was certain would not be objectionable to a non-biased review. You cannot personally dictate what you want included or excluded to promote a certain point of view, this is an encyclopedia and not a bully-pulpit. Burrying relevant, sourced contributions that any reasonable person would agree belong in an encyclopedia article on a subject in a mountain of requests for mediation/arbitration/discussion is disengenious and counter to everything that wikipedia stands for. Beckyvolley 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand WP:3RR - it doesn't matter whether or not your reversions are relevant/implementing NPOV or any other thing. When you are getting reverted more than once - then its time to take it to the talk pages. As it stands you are above the 3 reverts - but the rules also say that you have to be warned before community sanctions - so now you've been warned.

As for your edits. The article that you are putting this into is not about that kind of information - it belongs on the personal pages of the various "scientists". I sympathize with your opinion on some of these people - but its simply not the right place to put this info.

The funny thing is that the page (imho) is pretty WP:NPOV - as can be seen from the various comments on the Talk pages. You can divide the sceptic comments into two categories there: 1) the ones who believe that its an honour to be on the page - and think that we should lower the limits for who should get on... 2) Those who think that its a "freak"-show where we are trying to smear the people on the page. Read the Talk pages - comment there - see if you can get a consensus for your edits. Please. --Kim D. Petersen 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by your description above, you and I are in the same boat with the reversion problem, you seem to have a penchant for removing people's work without always discussing first. No worries, the article will balance out over time. Beckyvolley 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but the difference here is that i am aware of the 3RR rule (as you are also now) - and can therefore be blocked for violating 3RR. (which btw. is entirely proper). Please do not tag (putting such a 3RR notice on peoples pages) unless you think that they are not aware of the rule. Thats considered rude and inviolation of WP:AGF.

Wikipedia has a lot of rules - and we all have to learn them. In this case - when i reverted your edits without discussing them first - is because of WP:BLP which states that contentious information such as that which you inserted should be removed first - discussed later. --Kim D. Petersen 03:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World Diamond Congress

The article World Diamond Congress has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is a routine list of meeting sites. It is referenced only by the subject. No substantial third party coverage found, save trade papers. It is therefore insufficient to support an encyclopedia article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]