User talk:24.113.49.10

Wichita Massacre

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wichita Massacre. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KrakatoaKatie 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I know for a fact that this article is targeted with pc bias. ALL OF THE ABOVE refrences i have provided and are currently provided state RACIAL motivation even from pc bias newspapers. investigate the talk page yourself. i clearly tried to show consensus. a willingness to explain the facts and PROOF of my claims in the TALK page. not a single person refuted the refrences and just "decided" to revert because it wasnt thier POV when its clearly stated POV motivations are not allowed. yet im the one who is blocked and banned from my neutral stand point by admin sockpuppet accounts. im black and im being racist on my own people? i think not. why do they state that this site is available to edit by everyone if certain MODERATORS are clearly infringing and constantly breaking the rules? i dont think i will be editing here any more seeing as noone is allowed to edit unless its okay with the all powerful administrators beliefs.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I know for a fact that this article is targeted with pc bias. ALL OF THE ABOVE refrences i have provided and are currently provided state RACIAL motivation even from pc bias newspapers. investigate the talk page yourself. i clearly tried to show consensus. a willingness to explain the facts and PROOF of my claims in the TALK page. not a single person refuted the refrences and just "decided" to revert because it wasnt thier POV when its clearly stated POV motivations are not allowed. yet im the one who is blocked and banned from my neutral stand point by admin sockpuppet accounts. im black and im being racist on my own people? i think not. why do they state that this site is available to edit by everyone if certain MODERATORS are clearly infringing and constantly breaking the rules? i dont think i will be editing here any more seeing as noone is allowed to edit unless its okay with the all powerful administrators beliefs. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I know for a fact that this article is targeted with pc bias. ALL OF THE ABOVE refrences i have provided and are currently provided state RACIAL motivation even from pc bias newspapers. investigate the talk page yourself. i clearly tried to show consensus. a willingness to explain the facts and PROOF of my claims in the TALK page. not a single person refuted the refrences and just "decided" to revert because it wasnt thier POV when its clearly stated POV motivations are not allowed. yet im the one who is blocked and banned from my neutral stand point by admin sockpuppet accounts. im black and im being racist on my own people? i think not. why do they state that this site is available to edit by everyone if certain MODERATORS are clearly infringing and constantly breaking the rules? i dont think i will be editing here any more seeing as noone is allowed to edit unless its okay with the all powerful administrators beliefs. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I know for a fact that this article is targeted with pc bias. ALL OF THE ABOVE refrences i have provided and are currently provided state RACIAL motivation even from pc bias newspapers. investigate the talk page yourself. i clearly tried to show consensus. a willingness to explain the facts and PROOF of my claims in the TALK page. not a single person refuted the refrences and just "decided" to revert because it wasnt thier POV when its clearly stated POV motivations are not allowed. yet im the one who is blocked and banned from my neutral stand point by admin sockpuppet accounts. im black and im being racist on my own people? i think not. why do they state that this site is available to edit by everyone if certain MODERATORS are clearly infringing and constantly breaking the rules? i dont think i will be editing here any more seeing as noone is allowed to edit unless its okay with the all powerful administrators beliefs. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}