User talk:76.31.175.109

December 2019
Hello, I'm Everedux. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Teapot Dome scandal—because it 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 Help desk. Thanks.  Everedux  (talk)  22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teapot Dome scandal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

exactly why do you get to decide what is "constructive" ?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Teapot Dome scandal, you may be blocked from editing. [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 00:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

why is a section linking a current politician to a century old scandal "constructive" when all the sources cited are politically biased against him (Bloomberg/Benioff/Bezos)……… but mentioning that they are biased is "not constructive" ?

Regardless of your opinion, edit warring isn't constructive. The article's talk page already has a discussion on this point of contention. Chime in there instead of breaking WP:3RR. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * To the anonymous editor: the section that you are removing states that "news outlets compared alleged misconduct by members of the Trump cabinet...to the Teapot Dome scandal." That is distinctly neutral, and is a fact: those sources you state are "politically biased against [Trump]" are news outlets, and are also considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. I have reverted your edits because you are blanking an entire section of an article, especially one that is well-referenced, has a distinctly neutral tone, and is not factually inaccurate. If you would like to make a case for removing this section, you may make it at the article's talk page and seek consensus to remove the section. [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 00:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Teapot Dome scandal. ''This serves as your final warning. Please read my response to your messages above.'' [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 00:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.