User talk:SansBias

June 2015
What a bunch of losers. It is no wonder Wikipedia has no credibility. My professors have told me never to use it, and I know why. It is controlled by a bunch of stupid, biased, atheists. It is because of this rampant bias that has made Wiki totally unreliable and a waste of time for anyone seriously interest in any subject. You don't deserve academic respect, and it's all your own fault. I laugh at you losers who shoot themselves in the foot. I tried to make Wiki better, at least balanced, but it is intrinsically diseased.

Your recent editing history at Pam Reynolds case 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 00:30, 21 June 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Keri (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no concerns as I am not the one violating wiki procedures. I am not the one breaking the NPOV rule. I do not use as references people who are not expert in their field. And the edit rule covers a 24 hour period. I will not back down from this abuse of wiki editing privileges by others.

June 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours 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:. 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. De728631 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For your attempt of gaming the system by using another account in your edit war I have extended your block to indefinite. You may get unblocked when you can convince another administrator that you understand how to edit Wikipedia constructively and how to stick to the rules and guidelines. De728631 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Keri (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Keri (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)