User talk:BonnieStuver

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No Sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk page layout[edit]

Bonnie, the problem with interjecting comments with the Wiki-style commenting system is that it's easy to lose track of who said what. So if you compose your reply at the bottom of a given thread, it'll be easier to see who wrote what, and also to follow it in date order. Thanks. tedder (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded and signed my comments so they'd stand out, plus I'd like to respond to the specific accusations as they are. Looking through the archive, this seems to be common practice, even for this article. I don't understand the problem when I do it. I am literally the only person being challenged for this. Respectfully, --BonnieStuver (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow the article in the past, so I can't really explain why it was allowed. However, the goal is to make things more readable as it goes forward. You aren't being singled out. This happens a lot in article deletion discussions- the argument in that case of WP:OSE applies here in a way. tedder (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no big deal. I am new here and could use more friends, as I seem to be making enemies quickly. I won't do it from now on, if you can let them stand until the other editors can seem them I would appreciate it. Respectfully, --BonnieStuver (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Reply at the bottom, the issue isn't the content of your text, so it isn't being reverted for that. I think you raise some issues that StormRider should answer, FWIW. But interjecting it is disruptive. Put it at the bottom, use some prose to explain what you are referring to, and you'll be fine. tedder (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utahboysranchnetwork. MuZemike 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BonnieStuver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet and recently registered this name. This makes no sense

Decline reason:

Your edits are more or less identical to those of User:Utahboysranchnetwork. It doesn't seem likely that's a coincidence. That user was blocked for pushing a specific point of view, which is something that you've also been doing with this account. It's a shame, because you appear to have useful information and contributions to make, but your need to also push your opinions about the subject means that you won't be able to share those contributions in a useful way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BonnieStuver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Could it be that more than one person disagree with the POV being pushed by the editors? I demand for an admin to review this decision. It is unfair.

Decline reason:

Reviewed. I agree with the conclusions reached by FisherQueen and Muzemike. TN X Man 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BonnieStuver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is censorship. I've never registered for this site before, and if you should be able to see that using my IP address. I am being banned because I offended another editor, who I have just as much of a right to be here as he does.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's servers are private property of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have no "right" to be here; it's a privilege extended to those who follow policy that the community has agreed on (a big cornerstone of which is "one user, one account". Accordingly we can also (and do) set our own standards for what goes on the site or not, and since it's private property no one is being censored. You've used up the last request; page to be protected. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.