UK visit visa rejected due to unexplained deposits, how to approach. complex statement

I had applied for a UK visitor visa for General Medical Council registration, however I did not mention some recent deposits to my account.

The first bank statement is in your name (account number
ending at 9901) the Standard Chartered Bank showing a close
balance of USD $ 5,092 (£ 3,971). I have noticed that the account contains
an unexplained deposit of USD $ 700 (£ 545) on 02/12/2019, origins
of which are not clear. The documents presented do not show where this
The money has come. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the balance
indicated on your bank statement is an accurate reflection of your
habitual financial position and that your personal circumstances are so
set. This undermines the credibility of your application.

My second statement withdrawal on the same date and converted to USD was lost. The question is how to approach it.

The second bank statement is in your own name (account number
ending at 9901) the Standard Chartered Bank showing a close
PKR 177,159 balance (£ 893). I have noticed that the account contains
unexplained deposits totaling PKR 247,744 (£ 1,249) between 07/01/2020
and 01/22/2020 whose origins are not clear. Documents
presented does not show where this money comes from. Therefore i am
you are not satisfied that the balance indicated on your bank statement is
accurate reflection of your usual financial position and that your
Personal circumstances are as indicated. This undermines credibility.
of your application

This has two components, first are some bank deposits made by my friends who used my credit card to pay the exam fee and returned my money, these amount to 5 deposits, how can I make an acceptable statement for that?

The second is the money my brother sent me, this was sent to my inactive bank account that I use very little (I had not mentioned it on the visa). Now, should I mention this statement and my brother's statement as evidence? Do I make a statement for this?

Approval workflow returns the same approval status as the approved peer list item rejected by the approver

I create an approval workflow as follows

which always returns the approved result even if it is rejected, suggest the correct way to return the rejected value if Approvar rejected the list item

enter the image description here

What exactly does rejected mean in Oracle listener?

What exactly are the reasons why the listener rejects any connection attempt in the database?

Another question is, the amount of connection rejected is lsnrctl services Has the command connection been rejected since the listener started?

Email – Exim4 Rejected RCPT: address not routable when using / etc / aliases

I am trying to redirect emails originally sent to hello@example.comat

I have aliases archive:


And the following routers:

  driver = accept
  domains = +local_domains
  local_parts = mrxxx
  transport = local_dst
  cannot_route_message = Unknown mailbox

  driver = redirect
  data = ${lookup{$local_part}lsearch{/etc/aliases}}
  cannot_route_message = Unknown mailbox

local_dst transport It looks like the following:

  driver = appendfile
  directory = /var/mail/$local_part/Maildir
  mode_fail_narrower = false

According to the debug information, everything should work fine:

--------> local_router router <--------
checking domains in "@ :"? yes (matched "") in "+local_domains"? yes (matched "+local_domains")
checking local_parts
hello in "mrxxx"? no (end of list)
local_router router skipped: local_parts mismatch
--------> aliases_router router <--------
calling aliases_router router
rda_interpret (string): '${lookup{$local_part}lsearch{/etc/aliases}}'
 search_open: lsearch "/etc/aliases"
 search_find: file="/etc/aliases"
   key="hello" partial=-1 affix=NULL starflags=0
 LRU list:
 internal_search_find: file="/etc/aliases"
   type=lsearch key="hello"
 file lookup required for hello
   in /etc/aliases
 lookup yielded:
expanded: ''
file is not a filter file
extract item:
aliases_router router generated
  errors_to=NULL transport=NULL
  uid=unset gid=unset home=NULL
routed by aliases_router router
  envelope to:
--------> local_router router <--------
checking domains in "@ :"? yes (matched "") in "+local_domains"? yes (matched "+local_domains")
checking local_parts
mrxxx in "mrxxx"? yes (matched "mrxxx")
calling local_router router
local_router router called for
  domain =
set transport local_dst
queued for local_dst transport: local_part = mrxxx
domain =
  domain_data=NULL localpart_data=NULL
routed by local_router router
  envelope to:
  transport: local_dst
  router = local_router, transport = local_dst
search_tidyup called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exim pid=16 (main) terminating with rc=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

However, emails are rejected:

2020-03-08 21:24:20.079 (14) ( I=( X=TLS1.3:TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128 CV=no SNI="" F= rejected RCPT : Unrouteable address

Any ideas?

Should the "admin-ajax.php" file be allowed or rejected on my WordPress site in robots.txt?

This file is often used front-end by themes and add-ons.
It was modified in the WordPress robots.txt file a couple of years ago to allow tracking for this reason, after a problem with Google that could not track it.

The WP Core ticket thread can be found here and offers more information

Problem: Why is my article rejected to be published as a guest writer?

As I am a new article writer, he told me that he is not good enough with SEO and quality content. But I can't find your right problem. Then, it will be really nice and appreciable, if someone can really find me, what is the problem?

Here is the Google Docs link of my article:

Schengen Visa rejected "SIS Alert in the system"

I was approved for the Schengen visa last year and everything was fine and I stayed within the allowed period of my visa
I applied again this year and received a refusal
the reason was "an alert was issued in the Shengen information system to reject the entry of a member state"

Did anyone have a similar experience with this unusual reason?

Does the person who rejected it on Facebook receive a notification on Facebook after one year that the person who rejected now can add them again?

So, someone I know sent her a friend request like a year ago and she rejected it and it's been a year since that happened and I still can't send her a friend request, but in one of my other accounts I can still add it in that account. Does this mean that they are notified that a year has passed since they rejected it and now they can send another friend request and configure it where I still cannot add them?

Rejected in the code challenge due to lack of separation of concerns, but I feel that YAGNI [Kotlin / Java]

He was recently rejected in a code challenge that was a very simple web service with 3 endpoints:

  • POST /transactions to add transactions with a quantity and time stamp.
  • GET /statistics to check the statistics of last minute transactions.
  • DELETE /transactions.

I just pasted under the service object because the API controller is irrelevant:

data class Transaction(val amount: BigDecimal, val timestamp: Instant)

data class Statistics(val sum: String, val min: String, val max: String, val avg: String, val count: Int)

class TransactionInFutureException(message: String) : Exception(message)
class TransactionBeforeThreshold(message: String) : Exception(message)

const val THRESHOLD_SEC = 60L
const val CLEANER_INTERVAL_MS = 5000L
const val AMOUNT_SCALE = 2

class TransactionsService {
    protected val transactions = ArrayList()

    init {
        thread(start = true) {
            synchronized(transactions) {
                val threshold = getCurrentThreshold()
                transactions.removeAll { it.timestamp < threshold }

    fun add(amount: BigDecimal, timestamp: Instant) {
        if (timestamp >
          throw TransactionInFutureException("transaction timestamp cannot be in future")
        else if (timestamp < getCurrentThreshold())
          throw TransactionBeforeThreshold("transaction timestamp cannot be before threshold")

        synchronized(transactions) {
            transactions.add(Transaction(amount, timestamp))

    fun clear() {
        synchronized(transactions) {

    fun statistics(): Statistics {
        synchronized(transactions) {
            val threshold = getCurrentThreshold()
            val liveTransactions = transactions.filter { it.timestamp > threshold }
            val count = liveTransactions.count()
            var sum = BigDecimal(0)
            var max = if (count > 0) liveTransactions.first().amount else BigDecimal(0)
            var min = if (count > 0) liveTransactions.first().amount else BigDecimal(0)
            liveTransactions.forEach {
              sum += it.amount
              max = max.max(it.amount)
              min = min.min(it.amount)
            var avg = BigDecimal(0)
            if (count > 0)
              avg = sum.setScale(AMOUNT_SCALE, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP).
                        divide(BigDecimal(count), BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP)
            return Statistics(format(sum), format(min), format(max), format(avg), count)

    protected fun getCurrentThreshold() =

    protected fun format(value: BigDecimal) = value.setScale(AMOUNT_SCALE, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP).toString()

The two main points because they rejected me were:

There was no separation of concerns; Most of the logic is in just one

We felt that there was an excessive use of synchronized blocks, which could be replaced with a synchronized or concurrent collection

It seems they expected me to divide the functionality of TransactionService in a kind of StatisticsCalculator class that will do what the statistics() The method does.

To be honest, by the given requirements, I felt that this is an excessive engineering from here to Mars and I will apply the Yagni beginning:

  • TransactionsService As it stands, it is a 50L code class. It fits on a screen and is easy to follow. There is no cognitive overload when reading it.

  • Is there anything to gain by dividing the class in two at this time? I can barely say it, but I'm sure you'll have to add more complexity to the public API of TransactionService to allow iterating over stored transactions of StastisticsCalculator.

  • As programmers, we make compensation all the time, between complexity, maintainability, construction time, etc. I will declare that following the principle of sole responsibility is pressing too much SOLID over and I will simply adhere to YAGNI Y KISS.

  • When complexity arises in the future, refactoring and dividing will be my first choice.

What you think?