User talk:FactCheckkerrr

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. agt x 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Doug Weller talk 21:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

{unblock reviewed|reason I haven't violated the biographies policy, I've tried my best to present research honestly and accurately. FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC) FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm copy and pasting the message that was posted by the person blocking my account: The user (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • [ logs] • [ edit filter log] • block user • [ block log])  /  (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • [ logs] • [ edit filter log] • block user • [ block log])  is editing on Kathy Shelton in a way that makes clear that they are not here to contribute. The user (who I assume is not intentionally socking but rather has forgotten their password) is edit warring by repeatedly adding in material that is original research and (as least potentially) not relevant to the article. Attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page have ... broken down. agt x 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly you are right, I forgot my password for the first username. Secondly, you are wrong, that I am here to contribute. I contributed original research that contradicts many passages of the article. I framed it in unbiased language that takes into account both sides, rather than censoring certain realities because they make Hillary Clinton look better. As for relevancy, to determine what is relevant, I consider the issues with the judge being a support of Bill Clinton and instructed his son to donate to Bill to be relevant. I consider how his son Gordon Cummings signed a preliminary inquiry form that was not noted in the court docket, to be relevant, at least insofar as articles show there are those critical of it. I consider the handwriting that Taylor is to be released to work during the day to be relevant, especially in the context of the sheriff on the case, commenting on Hannity a week ago, says he was ordered to release Taylor without him serving his sentence at all. These are all relevant things that I added and sourced, specifically with the link to the Hannity radio show excerpt, and articles on legitimate sources citing all of this. So really the article is biased and presenting an incomplete perspective. FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)