User talk:BonnieStuver

Welcome
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:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

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. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

talk page layout
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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