User talk:Grandma Dottie

Greetings...

Hello, Grandma Dottie, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Not sure what I did to upset user BQzip01. I cannot discuss with him on his talk page for some reason. I think my edit to 'BQ' (The disamb page, not the user page) might have started problems. See the "What links Here" on the left of this page. What should I do? If this is how things happen here, I think that its better that I go somewhere else. This wass supposed to be for enjoyment. Grandma Dottie (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me

Note to other editors: It was me, User_talk:Trafford09#BQ, who then added this section and made GM's references into links, for my & others' benefit: Trafford09 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what I did to upset User_Talk:BQZip01. I cannot discuss with him on his talk page for some reason. I think my edit to BQ (the disamb page, not the user page) might have started problems. See the "What links Here" on the left of this page. What should I do? If this is how things happen here, I think that it's better that I go somewhere else. This was supposed to be for enjoyment. Grandma Dottie (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. We sort all these things out. Wikipedia is good fun usually. I'll check out what's happened and get back to you here. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BQ etc.

Hi again Grandma Dottie (see above). Well, you seem to have stepped inadvertently into a disputed page, with BQ, as you may realise, so I wouldn't take anything personally. It seems that User_Talk:BQZip01 has distinct views on a word in that article, hence their prior discussions on the Talk:BQ page.

If you cannot add to User_Talk:BQZip01 page for some reason, at least the section you added to Talk:BQ page was good, and has already drawn some support from another editor.

I'm puzzled, though, why you are unable to talk to User_Talk:BQZip01 there? That would normally be the best means of coming to an agreement, and that user seems to have been around a long time on WP, so should engage in meaningful discussion.

I'd suggest you try again to talk to User_Talk:BQZip01 there, and come back here to make a note of the symptoms, should this not be possible. I'll be monitoring this page, via my WP:Watchlist.

Good luck - I'm sure it'll all work out, hopefully amicably - please assume good faith. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page, or even come to IRC as per next section, below. Bye for now, Trafford09 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Live help

By the way, although it is noted in the helpme template, you may not be aware that the talk to us live thing really works; there's several people, including myself, sitting there all the time, more than happy to help users with any Wikipedia questions. Pop in and say "hi" some time. Trafford09 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

HOLD FIRE

Grandma, I've just been advised what the problem is, here. More shortly - don't do anything yet, for a minute or so, til I get back. Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the user you've tried to contact has had problems with vandalism on their talk page. Thus they have had the latter 'semi-protected'. This means you can't talk there yet, as you're a still-newly-registered user as yet.

However, they've set up a talk page just for such users as yourself to post to. The page you can post to is User talk:BQZip01/IP & New Users. Please could you start a discussion with the user there?

But please don't let this minor problem put you off Wikipedia. It really is a fun place to be, and I'm sure you'll have many hours or fun here, if you stick with us! Trafford09 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

It's obvious you're not a new user. You immediately targeted certain users and knew too much. I've posted a comment about that on ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Grandma Dottie, don't let this get you down. You've violated no policy, broken no guidelines. Keep editing. If you are in fact a previously experienced user, just keep editing. There's nothing wrong about having another account, so long as it is not used abusively. So far, you've performed no abusive edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, it is a violation of policy to use multiple accounts whether or not they are being used abusively or not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "There are some legitimate reasons for forming multiple accounts:" So Grandma, do as you will and beware of "experts" threatening you with "policy." ThreeE (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Once again, BQZ, you've misinterpreted policy. The policy says "It is recommended that contributors do not use multiple accounts without good reason". Note that it is not a requirement to not use multiple accounts. Further, "There are some legitimate reasons for forming multiple accounts: for example, experienced contributors might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new or inexperienced users, and contributors using their real name may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with." --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  I've misinterpreted nothing, though I didn't include the specific phrase from the policy quoted: "Using multiple accounts to give the appearance of popularity to an idea, to avoid scrutiny, or to avoid a block or ban on another account are considered major abuses and are not tolerated on Wikipedia." This person's edits appear to be just that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Furthermore, this person is claiming the opposite: that this is not an alternate account...which would be dishonest. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  How is "...it is a violation of policy to use multiple accounts whether or not they are being used abusively or not." (an inch or so above) not a misinterpretation? Face it, you regularly misinterpret policy. ThreeE (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Face it, I'm human and I make mistakes. I wasn't specific enough. This user's actions fall squarely in line with the reasons highlighted above and are, therefore, a violation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BQZip

Grandma, contrary to appearances, no one controls or owns any wikipedia page. The user in question has a long history of this type of behavior, so please don't let him turn you off from wikipedia. ThreeE (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ThreeE, you're right. I do have a history of making edits that conform to policy and guidelines. When it comes to reverting Dottie here, there are two guidelines that disagree with each other. In the interests of coming up with a solution, I've asked for feedback on the talk page...of which no one has responded. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked as a WP:DUCK sockpuppet. This block may be lifted per RFCU results, if clean. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this account has been unblocked by a checkuser on grounds that technical evidence makes a connection to other accounts unlikely. Behavioral evidence was insufficient to support a checkuser request, but since a block was made I endorsed it at WP:SPI anyway. Nathan ^T 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Be advised

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grandma_Dottie references you. Phineas J. Whoopee (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)