User talk:Cookiemonstericecream

hi

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) into Draft:Nymphadora Tonks. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2025 United States gubernatorial elections (November 29)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curbon7 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cookiemonstericecream! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2025 United States gubernatorial elections for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 United States gubernatorial elections is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 United States gubernatorial elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The excuse that was given to me was it was to so to publish my article I disagree using precedent. The 2026 senate elections has an article HOWEVER as the creator of the article I think y'all are making to much of a fuss Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Please explain why you are leaving Christmas greetings on the user talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had that question, too. You left a Christmas greeting to UserMetacakecc who has made one edit which was deleted and then they were indefinitely blocked. Is this an alternate account of yours? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cookiemonstericecream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I first want to say this is my one and only account. Secondly I left that message on multiple accounts that were clearly not related. The reason I did that was to tell them that not everyone on wikipedia was mad at them. They are clearly going through tough times if they did something wrong like that so I waas just trying to be friendly secondly what evedence do you have that this is a second account look at my contributions page Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Snowycake and Blueberrybagle, and your actions were inappropriate. I note that your unblock request has the same transparent attempt to mislead us as you did over at User talk:Blueberrybagle. Yamla (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cookiemonstericecream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will address the false accusations of sock puppetry later. But are you saying that wishing a lot of blocked users a merry Christmas is inappropriate also what is sock puppetry Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed as sockpuppet, rest of appeal is just time-wasting. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've revoked talk page access to prevent further time-wasting on frivolous appeals from a sock that has been confirmed by multiple checkusers (including me). Given that this is your second confirmed sock, WP:3X now applies. The standard offer is available through your original account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]