User talk:CozyandDozy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy is covered by discretionary sanctions

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 the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. 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.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Richard B. Spencer. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 22:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BARNSTAR

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		"... noting the discrepancy ..." - you nailed it. LOL. zzz (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin

Why are you insisting on re-inserting these contentious statements without answering my attempts to engage you on the talk page? Merely saying "whether he would rape Labor MP Jess Phillips, statements which Benjamin characterizes as jokes" implies people took Benjamin serious but he brushed it off as a joke. The debate was quite literally whether it was appropriate conduct to make such jokes. If you persist on going against consensus, I may be forced to report you for disruptive editing. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please make further replies at Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Lead_-_AGAIN and not here or my talk page. Thanks. --SVTCobra (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GergisBaki reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: ). Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 20:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to you to know we are both guilty until proven innocent. I have spent hours defending myself. We both exceeded WP:3RR. If you ignore it you will get the maximum ban. Just a tip. --SVTCobra (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

tabloid sources and living people

hi there. Please be aware tabloid sources like the daily mail and the mirror are not reliable sources to add content to bios of living people, also replacing disputed content in such atricles is against policy and considered edit warring, please open a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Carl Benjamin 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ryk72 ^talk 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Tucker Carlson does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! SharabSalam (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please use the talk page on Tucker Carlson to resolve your differences with AnUnamedUser. Protection doesn't seem to be helping, so if you both continue like this it's likely that you'll both be blocked. Stop Now. — Ched :  ?  — 04:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Tucker Carlson 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Ched :  ?  — 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And this by the way, without proper citation amounts to vandalism. If you continue your next block could be much longer. — Ched :  ?  — 15:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--CharlesShirley (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)