User talk:FactExposer

Share the facts here

September 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Vulture capitalist 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: Vulture capitalist was changed by FactExposer (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.967146 on 2019-09-25T13:48:02+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros

Your edit to this page has been reverted; by the terms of "consensus required" restriction imposed on the article in question, you are required to take your proposed edit to the talk page, discuss and gain consensus before reinserting. I have concerns with the sourcing and tone of the addition; an obscure fringe opinion columnist for a small alt-weekly may not be due weight here. Please discuss your proposal on the talk page rather than reverting further. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at George Soros. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate the rule one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period! I only made one revert with more information and US media source FactExposer (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm unsure if you should have been blocked for a WP:1RR violation, but your edits were most certainly disruptive. While blocked, take the opportunity to read and understand WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EW, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:NONAZIS. You'll want to edit substantially differently once your block expires, and I choose not to lift your block at this time because you have not yet demonstrated any reason to believe this would happen. Yamla (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.