User talk:CozyandDozy

LoS as neo-Nazi group
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
Doug Weller talk 11:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
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)
 * People actually do read sources to see if they support the claims being made. Meters (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit at Sidney Powell
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
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
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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)
 * 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 stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.   Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

Edit warring
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bacondrum (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Southern
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
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 &#124; Talk 16:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at 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.


 * 1) Warnings on CozyandDozy's talk page from this year, showing these are an ongoing problems about which Cozy has been warned repeatedly
 * 2) 13 February 2020–March 2020: Unsourced/NPOV changes to Milo Yiannopoulos, breach of consensus required discretionary sanction
 * 3) *15:32, 13 February 2020‎ (UTC): CozyandDozy changes the sentence in the lead from "Through his speeches and writings, he criticizes Islam, feminism" to "Through his speeches and writings, he ridicules Islam, feminism". No summary.
 * 4) *18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC): CozyandDozy adds "trasngender [sic] people" to the list of subjects Yiannopoulos criticizes, and removes "political correctness"; no sources added. Summary NPOV; adding trasngender (common Milo target). There is no mention of trans people elsewhere in Yiannopoulos' bio at this point.
 * 5) *00:41, 16 February 2020: Flyer22 Frozen reverts both of the above edits, summary POV and verifiability issues. That needs to be sourced and covered lower first.
 * 6) *22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC): Flyer22 Frozen informs CozyandDozy on their talk page that there's a consensus required discretionary sanction active on Milo Yiannopolous, and tells Cozy they need to revert themselves. This was later followed by AP and BLP DS notices from El C.
 * 7) *Additional edits from 16 February to 24 February show the continued dispute
 * 8) *The matter culminated in an ANI thread at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030, moved to a BLPN thread at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive299
 * 9) *02:38, 9 March 2020: Warning from Flyer22 Frozen, shortly after CozyandDozy's block had expired. Partial quote: Regarding this, do you need to be blocked by Doug Weller again? What is it that you do not understand about discretionary sanctions?
 * 10) 22 February 2020: Violations of 1RR DS at Racial views of Donald Trump
 * 11) *Edits from 22 February 2020
 * 12) *Warnings from MrX asking CozyandDozy to use edit summaries, and noting that they violated the 1RR DS on the page: As you saw in the big yellow box, If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.. I'm not sure why you ignored it, especially given the recent warnings that you received, but please don't violate editing restrictions again or you may end up blocked or topic banned from these article.
 * 13) 4 March 2020: block by Doug Weller, see "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" for more on this.
 * 14) 5 April–7 May 2020: Unsourced edit warring on League of the South
 * Edits beginning on 16:29, 5 April 2020‎.
 * 03:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC): Beyond My Ken asks CozyandDozy to provide sources to support their edits
 * 1) 3–5 May 2020: Addition of unsourced content to Coptic identity
 * 2) *22:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC): Changes "A study of Coptic immigrants from Egypt indicated that they have common ancestry with populations in Egypt, as well as also sharing common ancestry with populations of the southern Levant and Saudi Arabia." to "... and are closely related to the populations of the..." No summary.
 * 3) *23:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Changes "Studies have showed the ancient Egyptians to be" to "Copts". No summary.
 * 4) *23:47, 5 May 2020 Elizium23 reverts, summary Conform with sources.
 * 5) *23:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Elizium23 leaves a uw-unsourced3 warning on CozyandDozy's talk page.
 * 6) 14 June 2020 warnings from Meters about unsourced edits to various AP BLPs
 * 7) *22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC): Meters leaves a uw-biog1 warning for CozyandDozy, for edits to Nick Fuentes
 * 8) **Edit in question was 21:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC), where CozyandDozy added "Fuentes' Latino surname comes from his Mexican paternal grandfather. Fuentes admits that he is a quarter Latino, but identifies as white, not Latino." to the article lead. At the time there was no mention of Fuentes' heritage anywhere else on the page.
 * 9) * 14 June 2020 (UTC): Meters leaves a uw-unsourced4 warning for CozyandDozy (noting that they'd increased the warning level because CozyandDozy had cleared several unsourced editing warnings from their talk page recently)
 * 10) **Edits in question were 04:43–04:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)‎, where CozyandDozy removed According to political scientist Tamir Bar-On, Spencer defends "racialist and anti-Semitic agendas" of the Old Right under a new metapolitical guise, acting as a cultural influencer rather than a direct political actor, and using various media outlets to "disseminate his views to ordinary people in an accessible manner". and replaced it with Following the failure of his political endeavors in the Beltway, in 2018 Spencer moved back in with his mother, at whose Montana home he continues to reside.. The only summary was in the first edit, which removed the original paragraph saying This belongs in the body not the elde
 * 11) **22:04, 14 June 2020‎ (UTC): Meters reverts, summary undo. The supposed source says nothing of the sort
 * 12) **04:19, 15 June 2020‎ (UTC): CozyandDozy removes the same graf, not replacing it with anything this time. Summary This is not on topic and does not belong in the lede. It is one scholar's analysis.
 * 13) **09:20, 15 June 2020‎ (UTC): Calton reverts, summary A) Since it's specifically what he's known for, yeah, it's on-topic; b) yes, it's a scholar's judgment. that's why it's attributed.
 * 14) 20–22 November 2020: Edit warring at Rudy Giuliani
 * 15) *Edit warring between 20 November and 22 November, claiming to have consensus on the talk page where discussion was ongoing
 * 16) *13:02, 21 November 2020‎: uw-brd warning from Vaselineeeeeeee
 * 17) *20:26, 22 November 2020: uw-disruptive2 warning from Vaselineeeeeeee
 * 18) *20:41, 22 November 2020 uw-disruptive3 warning from Vaselineeeeeeee

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)

Retiring from Wikipedia
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)

March 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aaron Mate, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧</b> 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at 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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)