User talk:Melioraoptimus1

Unexplained deletion

Do not delete relevant, appropriately sourced text as you did here, especially without explanation. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg issues

As you can see, there are a number of editors at the Michael Bloomberg article who appear repeatedly to add UNDUE or out of context snippets to disparage Bloomberg. When you remove these BLP violations or UNDUE content, it's important to cite some RS references to support your removal. Otherwise you will face straw man opposition, such as an editor recently raised about your Reddit link. If you can find some Reliable Source discussion that reflects the narrative you linked on Reddit, that will help editors to understand and accept your removal. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

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.

- Mr X 🖋 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to give you this warning exactly as worded:

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.

MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what that means:

You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.

Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the problem is: you made two reverts - removing sourced information, and when someone restored it, removing it again - from the article Michael Bloomberg. When someone reverts an edit of yours, don't do it again. Instead, go to the article talk page and discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I see that MrX and I gave you the DS warning at exactly the same time. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert your revert and take it to talk

I am not a fan of the policy but others will look to drop a a hammer as article is under BRD and 1RR, see below from Talk Page warnings:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). These restrictions have been imposed pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorized discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert. Please edit carefully.

Slywriter (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bloomberg

Hello, Melioraoptimus1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

Given your singular interest in Bloomberg, would you please review the guideline and make any necessary declarations if you have a conflict of interest and/or are directly or indirectly paid with respect to him and/or his campaign. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg's public image and lifestyle

I had to revert your edits because IMDb is generally an unreliable source, per WP:RSP and WP:CITEIMDB. If you choose to add this statement back to the article, please find a different and reliable source. Furthermore, according to the infobox on Focus (2001 film), the film was released on September 9, 2001, which means that Bloomberg produced it before he took office as mayor, not during his tenure. --Wow (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]