User talk:Dude Guymansen

I've reverted your edit to Sovereign citizen movement. Please note that any disputed information in Wikipedia needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Where differences of opinion are unreconcilable, please see WP:NPOV for how to deal with this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sovereign citizen movement, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Sovereign citizen movement. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ifnord (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Citizen Movement

Hello! I see you're a new user interested in this article. Unfortunately, you kinda jumped straight into the deep end of Wikipedia editing. So let me give you a few pointers.

Your suggestion on the talk page was more of an essay than what Wikipedia would accept, that's why it got removed. Wikipedia prefers its articles written by referencing reliable sources, which means scholarly sources are preferred first, major media second. We generally frown on primary sources (aka the person saying something) unless we're just quoting them, and some sources (like blogs, other encyclopedias/wikis, or editorials) are just plain not allowed.

Also not allowed are personal anecdotes or drawing your own conclusions. Which is one reason your suggestion was rejected, it read more like your personal views & experience with the group.

You might want to start with some less controversial subjects while you learn Wikipedia's rules & process, then come back to this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]