5.170.120.58

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions 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).

Create an account

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

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! Tarheel95 (Talk) 21:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Constitutionalism. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (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.

It is an important writing, it is not promotion but scientific objectivity, greetings, do not cancel the quote

Questions and theories on constitutionalism is an important essay on the doctrines and history of constitutionalism published by the prestigious Utet publishing house and has studied many profiles also of the crisis of contemporary constitutionalism, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.120.58 (talk • contribs)

Please obtain talk page consensus prior to restoring the link (the article talk page, not this one).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I entered a scientific clarification. Can you leave the quote? As an English scholar on the subject I think it is an excellent book.Tank you

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• You are now past three reverts to restore the disputed link and will be blocked if you continue to edit war to add it back in. As I've explained before, you need to get consensus (read this link!) on the article talk page before you can add it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

---