User talk:Snakehands

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to News of the World, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: News of the World was changed by Snakehands (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878672 on 2011-07-09T20:56:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 06:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LondonBridge444

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LondonBridge444
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/gabetrodd
Some interesting overlaps there. RafikiSykes (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Diane Abbott appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. "Racist remarks" is not an appropriate section title in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for BLP violations at Diane Abbott

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you edit warring is clearly in violation of our policies on acceptable behavior, and is part of the reason I blocked you, to prevent further disruption. I suggest reading WP:BLP and WP:3RR during your day off. That someone else reverted you is irrelevant, as their reverting clear BLP violations is an exception to the 3RR limit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I've already blocked you once for BLP violations, specifically for POV warring on Diane Abbott. If you add back the problematic titles or continue to edit war, you leave me no choice to block you for a longer period of time, or for an indefinite period of time. As you have been blocked once before for this exact behavior, this will be your only warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fair and accurate. The title best describes that actions of the person.

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Diane Abbott. 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I'm not getting through to you and a limited block is of no consequences. As I can't determine a period of time that will prevent the disruption, I'm forced to block for an indefinite period of time. Continuing to do the exact same edits that got you blocked the first time, then defending them when given a final warning, and ignoring them and just continuing to make the edits, well, that tells me you aren't here to build and encyclopedia. You appear to be here to push a specific point of view, and that is against policy. Any admin is free to unblock if they are convinced that Snakehands "gets it" and will work in a constructive and cooperative manner without my permission, although a note afterwards is requested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, you seem to be on a power trip and, as such, I suggest you seek advice from more experienced moderators. The person in question has a long history of racial stereotyping. It is what it is. If you can't moderate intelligently, then stop doing it. Due to your moronic actions I have now stopped my wiki donations.

Yes, that is all and well and I'm sure we will survive. I would suggest you discontinue the personal attacks and focus on the reasons you were blocked from editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong. The subject has a long history of racial stereotyping, therefore, the section about her history of racial stereotyping can reasonably be subtitled 'Racial Stereotyping'. Clearly you are the one with an agenda.