User talk:Snowwhite1984

October 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page List of singer-songwriters has been reverted. Your edit here to List of singer-songwriters was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.youtube.com/c/suriusvsvodka/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to List of Christian hip hop artists have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Your edit here to List of Christian hip hop artists was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://youtube.com/SuriusVsVodka/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Caliber: ChangeMakers Academy


Hello, Snowwhite1984. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Caliber: ChangeMakers Academy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Natural News, you may be blocked from editing. —  Newslinger  talk   11:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm General Ization. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fascism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Discuss your change on the article's Talk page.  General Ization Talk  20:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, I'm Dylan620. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Natural News—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Dylan 620 (he/him · talk · edits) 00:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism only account
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not vandalized anything! I made edits but I didn't add anything inaccurate or extreme and I mostly have taken out inaccurate information. I have not violated any rules, guidelines or done anything that should be considered damaging or offensive. I am about factual information, not pushing any ideology or agenda and I am very insulted by being blocked and insinuating I have been inappropriate in my edits. Snowwhite1984 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

disruptive editing, vandalism,etc
I have only made edits that are factual, or at least reasonable. I don't add things that are extreme and very opinionated, I mainly just take out things that are inaccurate. Fascism, being one of those pages that continues to say "far right" and it's very frustrating because that is not factual at all and it's very biased and clearly has an agenda attached. The Webster dictionary definition doesn't say right,left,etc it just defines it as it is. When doing a Google search though, Wikipedia is the one that pops up,you don't even have to click on the link to the page,it displays it right there on the search page. And I don't think that is ok. It feels very much like an extremely opinionated political agenda, propaganda and what not, and it should not be in the main definition,the first few sentences as if factual. there's sections for things like controversies, opinions of large groups even if it's majority, but it should be stated in the correct section and with context as such.