User talk:ZooFamily

Blah, Blah Blah.

)--ZooFamily (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ZooFamily. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Your recent editing history at 2012 Quebec student protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at 2012 Quebec student protests. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Note: I should point out that your last revert is listed as undoing my edit which is misleading - my two consecutive edits were making and correcting an error on my part as noted in my edit summary, so I'm not defending my edit. Doing so would have been an abuse of my authority.

Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wrongly blocked after Fixing Sneaky Vanadalsim. ZooFamily (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While the statement you used could benefit from some adjustment to make it closer to what the cited source says, the essential point does substantially reflect that source, and it is absurd to call it "sneaky vandalism". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2012 (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.

What is the relationship between you and User:MrBoire? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Editing

I find it so convenient that you are the one that removed the whole section without justification. I don't believe the onus should strictly be on me to explain why I think it should not be removed. 'Forcing' you into an edit war is quite an interesting concept as well. You re-edited 3 times, you should learn the rules.

I am willing talk about your objective concerns.

Fredroster (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Marianopolis College. Entering into an edit war on the heels of such a recent block for edit warring on a different article points out a severe issue. If you can't edit here without edit warring, you have no place editing here at all. Once this most recent block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of MrBoire (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. User:De728631 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Only one account, looks like a bug to me. See User Talk for Jpgordon - I responded to question and now retribution after someone changed my " wiki love smile ". ZooFamily (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Both behavioural evidence and checkuser evidence show that this is a sockpuppet account. It is way beyond all reasonable doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (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.