Inependantyo

Hello, I'm Mean as custard. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mean as custard (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

racism

It's definitely constructive and not just experimentation. I'm working to fix the purposeful lack of historical context present throughout this page. It repeatedly characterizes the Apache people as faceless warriors, as evidenced as the lack of mention of them acting out of defense against invading european forces and suggestion that after suffering a genocide, the naming of weapons by their attackers after them is some sort of sign of respect or admiration. Your repeated erasure of my attempt to undo the racism I've layed out for you suggests your interest in the continual removal of the incredibly important information surrounding the reasons for Apache migration and conflict with White forces and your support of the whitewashing of history, which is a skewed and heavily uninclusive view, and as I've come to understand it that is not what Wikipedia stands for. 73.24.128.173 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article is probably skewed from the white point of view, but emotive language is not the solution, you need to find reasoned arguments with references which support alternative views. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

please quote back to me said emotive language. last I checked genocide is non emotive

On further reading I consider the article to be well-balanced; it is you who are introducing bias. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing bias against whom, White people? Look, Mean as custard, the comment on the page about the naming of the Apache Helicopter being a sign of admiration is a highly opinion based and incredibly unbalanced viewpoint from white people. There is no purpose in including it other that to represent the feelings of white people, which are incredibly unrepresentative of most people.

As your edits have been somewhat contentious, I felt it best to revert the article to its original state. Then when your block has expired, you can discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page and see if you can achieve consensus before rushing into things. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Apache with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.Mean as custard (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Apache. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to United States has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: United States was changed by Inependantyo (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954126 on 2015-07-16T01:43:54+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Slavery among Native Americans in the United States

Stop it. The source specifically says that the practices described in that paragraph took place before "Europeans arrived as colonialists in North America".

If you continue to edit war or add material contrary to sources, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Youre the one that should be banned for edit warring. Get over your power trip. The source says pre-colonial NOT pre contact. Either leave the whole thing, including the edit, or remove it. You cant just decide to hide information.

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Slavery among Native Americans in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Inependantyo reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Slavery among Native Americans in the United States and at Apache

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Inependantyo reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Malicious reverts

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).

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

---

Request reason:

None of my edits contain vandalism. If youre offendeded by the removal of poorly written and incomplete facts, or the completion of said incomplete fact, complete it or fully remove it yourself. Inependantyo (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blockd for edit warring, not vandalism. Whether you're right or not, it's just prohibited. Max Semenik (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Inependantyo (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Block extended

One month for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)