User talk:Cooliglazeddonutzer

Your submission at Articles for creation: Media Posts Official (December 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Media Posts Official and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cooliglazeddonutzer! Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Great Meme Reset (trend) (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Great Meme Reset (trend) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Moderatrolling moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Moderatrolling. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and self-published sources are not regarded as reliable. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rambley^[who?] 22:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bomellida

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bomellida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. SecretSpectre (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Cooliglazeddonutzer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. SecretSpectre (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Media Posts Official

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Media Posts Official has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Cooliglazeddonutzer

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page User:Cooliglazeddonutzer has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

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. Thank you. Annh07 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Lyon (criminal). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Meadowlark (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand you're upset that things you've written are being deleted. This is not because anyone is out to get you, it's simply because they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are lots of other places you can write about whatever you want, but this is not one of them.

You need to do your best to assume good faith, and you must not make personal attacks on anyone. This can be very hard when you're angry. The best thing to do is just take a break, do something that makes you feel better (I like to cuddle my cats), and wait until you're calm and ready to discuss things before coming back. Tell yourself that everyone is just trying to be helpful and do the right thing, and if you don't see how what they're doing is helpful then just ask them (politely) to explain. Then you can have a proper discussion and come to an agreement with no one getting upset or in trouble. Meadowlark (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that's a personal attack, because literally when was I ever angry? Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not meaning to be rude, again, I just talk like I look like I'm trying to be rude, I don't know why I do that. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It's something you'll have to work on if you want to edit Wikipedia - doing your best to be civil is extremely important. I was not attacking you, I was just acknowledging that it's much harder to assume good faith and remain civil when you're angry, because to me your tone sounded angry. It's something we all have to be mindful of. I know I've had to walk away from articles because I knew I couldn't be civil to people who were saying things that I found deeply upsetting and offensive. If you know that sometimes your comments might sound rude to other people, you can always say that - 'If my tone seems rude I apologise, it's not intentional and I'm working on it' could help your words be interpreted as you mean them to be.

I'm sorry to see that you're currently blocked. The problem with having someone else access your account is that unfortunately we have no way of knowing whether the original account holder is back in control, or if the person who got into it is still in control and lying to us. At this point I think your best strategy might be to make a new account if that's the only thing keeping this account blocked - Rsjaffe, if you don't mind, is this user permitted to start afresh provided they keep their account secure and avoid personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour? I would be willing to keep an eye on them and help with questions and policies if they're interested in that. Meadowlark (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this user being allowed to "start fresh". Nobody should be able to create hoaxes, attack pages, do blatant and obvious vandalism etc. and immediately be let off the hook because another user is "keep[ing] an eye on them". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, I understand your concerns, which is why I asked if the compromise is the only problem (I suspect it may not be). At any rate, it looks like they've now lost talk page access due to further poor choices rather than listening to any advice they've received from multiple editors, so I'll be withdrawing my offer. Meadowlark (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

When they've grown and matured a lot more, they could consider editing a different Wikimedia project for several months/a year or two then submit an appeal - I strongly emphasise that they'd need to edit other projects carefully and responsibly, before coming back here with a significant history of productive contributions to a sister project as evidence that they can become a legitimate Wikipedia editor.

It would be a way forward at least, but one that's completely dependant on their own actions & ability to learn and do better as an editor. It's a possible future I hope they consider working towards, but not for few years since they're clearly not ready yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Aesurias here. Other projects don't need an editor who has themself admitted that they will never respect the website. We should be directing editors who could reasonably improve to other projects, not editors that clearly don't want to improve. 11WB (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah I missed that particular edit. Agreed - they've got a lot of maturing to do. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some advice

I see that your start to contributing to Wikipedia has, unfortunately, been troublesome, so I'll offer you some advice, in the hope that it may help you to avoid further problems. Obviously, as with any advice, it's up to you whether you take it or not, but I strongly advise you to take it seriously, because if you don't you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator before long.

• In some cases you seem to have perfectly good faith disagreements with some aspects of Wikipedia policies. So do I. At times I have taken part in attempts to change policies: sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully. However, it's best to first build up enough experience of how Wikipedia works to get an understanding of the policies and why they are as they are.
• Bear in mind that most of the people you will come across on Wikipedia are volunteers, making a good faith attempt to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia. There will, of course, be times when you think those good faith contributions are mistaken, just as other people will think that some of your contributions are mistaken; when that happens, the thing to do is to explain one's opinion civilly and politely, with a view to discussing the matters. People who react angrily towards other editors when they disagree, or who are seen as being uncivil or as attacking other editors, are likely to be seen as unconstructive. Therefore they are very unlikely to find others give much heed to their opinions.
• While, as I said, much of what you have done appears to have been done in good faith, there have been a few edits which don't look that way. For example, it is difficult to see your editing of the article Naval Act of 1938 as anything other than vandalism. I strongly urge you to resist any temptation to do anything like that again, because in view of your editing history even one more edit like that stands a good chance of persuading an administrator that enough is enough, and the time has come to block you from editing.

I have put a significant amount of time and thought into writing this message, to try to help you to avoid being blocked from editing. Naturally I hope that time won't turn out to have been wasted. As I said, it's up to you to decide whether to take my advice, but I recommend seriously thinking about it. If you need any clarification of any of the points I've mentioned, please feel welcome to ask me. JBW (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"While, as I said, much of what you have done appears to have been done in good faith, there have been a few edits which don't look that way. For example, it is difficult to see your editing of the article Naval Act of 1938 as anything other than vandalism. I strongly urge you to resist any temptation to do anything like that again, because in view of your editing history even one more edit like that stands a good chance of persuading an administrator that enough is enough, and the time has come to block you from editing."

To explain that, my little sibling got access to my Wikipedia account. Another moderator recently brought that up, any previously non-good editing is my little sibling. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing from Cooliglazeddonutzer. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is globally locked, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I now know fully why you blocked my account. You blocked it because you didn't have any reasons to block me, and even when I'm definitely not compromised, you still did it anyways, because it's the first word that came off your mind, even if it's not correct, and even if you still had time to think about it. If any other editors ever read this, and if I get unblocked ever for this wrong reason, I just want you to know that every single editor on this website is wrong. I am very likely never going to have any more respect for this app, unless if magically I get unbanned, which based on your attitude, probably won't happen. This is a time capsule, and this whole app is wrongful indictment everytime someone gets banned, this is respect for the ones that got wrongfully banned like me, or terminated, even IP banned. Goodbye. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cooliglazeddonutzer Not compromised? You already said "my little sibling got access to my Wikipedia account". That is the definition of a compromised account -- that someone other than you has access to it. David10244 (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My account has not been compromised, I do not understand why this block has been filed. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unless you can absolutely prove this is you and not your sibling, this block would not be lifted on that basis; contrary to your screed above, you were also blocked for hoaxing; and that screed above establishes that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

So this statement where you claimed that my little sibling got access to my Wikipedia account is a lie? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That was for like a second, he's not gonna do it again and I know for a fact how, but since it's family stuff that I'm not comfortable sharing with some random person online, I'm basically not gonna tell you, or anyone else for that matter. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(shrugs) You don't have to do so. It's irrelevant how or why; just that your account is insecure in the first place is the only fact necessary. Regarding your rant above, we will somehow manage to soldier on without your seven mainspace edits, almost all of which have been reverted. In any event, if you're incapable of grasping that having an insecure account is the very definition of "compromised," you're a poor fit for Wikipedia anyway. Ravenswing 05:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You should read the humorous essay WP:BROTHER. PhilKnight (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cooliglazeddonutzer: per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK you are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests pertaining to your current block. You may remove other content from this page, although it would be appreciated if you didn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Cooliglazeddonutzer! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Trying to make a article for Bomellida but it keeps getting deleted falsely, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Great Meme Reset (trend)

Hello, Cooliglazeddonutzer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Great Meme Reset (trend), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Great Meme Reset (trend)

Hello, Cooliglazeddonutzer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Great Meme Reset".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)