User talk:70.125.121.147

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to David Zuckerman (politician)&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
The idea though, that a random piece by someone, a thesis not even postulated until 2021, should be the headline of a section on strict constructionism, and that it is not listed as an opinion held by some but as the fact of the matter is laughable. The section is led with this as if it is history, and not opinion. If you actually read the source it is a quite uncompelling argument, but more importantly, it is an argument, it is not the truth, so why lead an encyclopedia with it, as if it is both not debated and the most important thing about strict constructionism. And I wholeheartedly disagree with the philosophical direction that wikipedia has gone down. Your edit is not more valuable than mine. That was the whole point of wikipedia, that it was free for everyone. So I completely reject the notion that I need to ask permission from the rulers of wikipedia to edit. I saw an issue and I corrected it. I do not need permission from the editor class, because if I did this would be like every other institution and completely not in keeping with wikipedia. Additionally, I am hardly the first person to object to this particular passage. A quick look at the talk page showed other users having the same critique, with the response being "it's in an adcademic source" His complaint was ignored and I have no doubt that all complaints to the effect of disagreement with the ruling editors will simply be ignored. T Hello, I'm Twsabin. I noticed that you recently removed content from Originalism 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. twsabin 01:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Originalism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Originalism, you may be blocked from editing. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (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. twsabin 01:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason you gave, after already having removed the content three times, is not valid. You needed to bring up one of the "100 pieces" that support your change on the talk page. You must understand that Wikipedia wouldn't function if people conducted themselves like you have been doing. twsabin 01:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @70.125.121.147 I have to agree with @Twsabinhere. You need to develop a consensus before removing large chunks of an article like you're doing here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually Wikipedia espouses WP:BOLD editing, but when content is already sourced and relevant, wholesale removal is very rarely the way to go. Instead, ways to incrementally improve it (for example: one could incorporate disparate sources as different viewpoints) are needed. This is routinely discussed on the talk page. Mere removal while saying I have 100 sources in an edit summary is not constructive at all. It's not what edit summaries are for. They are not for arguing in such a way. You also breached the three-revert-rule. twsabin 01:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Skateboarding dog have been undone because they 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 Teahouse. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)