CozyandDozy
LoS as neo-Nazi group edit
Hi. I cannot find a source that explicitly says that the League of the South is a neo-Nazi organization. The SPLC says they have aligned themselves with the neo-Nazi Nationalist Front, but does not say that they are themselves neo-Nazi. If you have a source that does say this, please add it to the article and restore "neo-Nazi" to the lead. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
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-1932 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 11:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 edit
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Nick Fuentes, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Meters (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Richard B. Spencer . Bump to final. Recently removed a level 3. Meters (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit at Sidney Powell edit
CozyandDozy, I didn't remove your paragraph, but combined it with the one above. If you don't like the way I revised to remove redundancies, then please do it yourself. There is no need to say things twice in three paragraphs. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
BRD edit
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Edit warring edit
Take it from someone who's learnt the hard way, edit warring is going to get you blocked if you keep at it, you've had plenty of warnings, please stop.
Your recent editing history at Lauren Southern 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. Bacondrum (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Lauren Southern edit
This is really not okay: "it would be best if you self-published an article describing which views you now repudiate...We can use your own writings as a source about yourself" You should not be coaching the subject of an article to write favourably about themselves offsite in order to present self serving claims about themselves in their own article on wikipedia. That is a text book example of WP:GAMING. I'm assuming good faith, but please don't do it again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lauren_Cherie_Southern#Note_regarding_your_complaint_on_your_article Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020 edit
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mike Enoch. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. And if it's "firmly established", then actual reliable sources shouldn't be a problem, should they? Calton | Talk 16:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CozyandDozy. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Per your request, here is the additional information I collated about the various warnings you've received over the past year. I've collapsed it since it's a bit long, but reformat it if you'd prefer.
Warnings on CozyandDozy's talk page from 2020
|
|---|
|
GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, just as a note, AE uses sectioned discussion, meaning you should only reply in the "Statement by CozyandDozy" section rather than directly in my section. It's a little disjointed to read, but it's how most arbitration and arbitration-adjacent pages work. I've moved your two comments already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- oh my goodness, this is extremely weak sauce. And here I was actually inclined to think that you'd have something. Saying "Fuentes" is of partially Hispanic descent is a serious BLP issue? Saying Milo "ridicules" feminism is a BLP issue? Saying Milo mocks transgender people is a BLP issue? Note also that these facts were and are cited in sourxes in the article.
- Ironically, your additional diffs corroborate my point that Enoch is the only serious offense, and the rest is weak sauce. Since I still kinda like you, for reasons less obvious than they may appear, I do not question your intellectual honesty, but certainly speculate about how I rubbed you the wrong way. (The missus gorilla stuff was a joke about the norms of Wikipedia, namely how it's absurd that we are expected to take a formal, exquisitely polite tone with people while simultaneously referring to them with glib and cutesy nicknames. Did you take this for condescension?) CozyandDozy (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't make AE reports because someone's rubbed me the wrong way or because I took something they said as condescension. It's exactly like I said at AE: I was honestly at a loss for how to get through to you that this is a serious problem. Perhaps I am indeed misreading or overreacting and this is all "weak sauce"; that is up to the uninvolved admins at AE now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, come off it Gorilla. The thing was over the second you filed it. Had it been some rando I may have had a chance.
- I'm going to dramatically retire from Wikipedia now; I am certain to be topic banned but at least I can beat them to the punch. For the record, my crimes including listing that a Serbian neo-Nazi was Serbian, that Milo ridicules transgender people, and that Nick "Fuentes" descends (in part) from Spanish speaking persons. (One irony is that, in almost all cases, the consensus of editors came to favor my "contentious" change; that change became the new, stable text; and said changes were backed by RS.) CozyandDozy (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't make AE reports because someone's rubbed me the wrong way or because I took something they said as condescension. It's exactly like I said at AE: I was honestly at a loss for how to get through to you that this is a serious problem. Perhaps I am indeed misreading or overreacting and this is all "weak sauce"; that is up to the uninvolved admins at AE now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, just as a note, AE uses sectioned discussion, meaning you should only reply in the "Statement by CozyandDozy" section rather than directly in my section. It's a little disjointed to read, but it's how most arbitration and arbitration-adjacent pages work. I've moved your two comments already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Retiring from Wikipedia edit
I'm going to spend more time getting and dozing off, as opposed to editing Wikipedia, when I'm feeling cozy in bed. CozyandDozy (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
March 2022 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aaron Mate, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is CozyandDozy. Thank you. Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned indefinitely from any editing regarding regarding post-1992 American politics.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned for six months from editing any biography of a living person or material about the same, to expire 20 September 2023.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)