User talk:Iylacooper

A tag has been placed on Draft:Izaya Hendrix Cormier Wener, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Izaya Hendrix Cormier Wener 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/Izaya Hendrix Cormier Wener 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 until the discussion has finished.

• a frantic turtle 🐢 16:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iylacooper. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear PhilKnight,

I hope you’re well. The events that have surpassed have been very shocking and I’m very confused about them. I have been blocked and banned for sock puppetry. However, I have not committed this offence. I only have 1 account and it’s “Iylacooper”. I am deeply upset and disappointed since you can’t ban or block my account without proof. Agreement does not equal proof. Please unblock my account.

Thank you. Iylacooper (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) you are welcome to request an unblock using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, replacing Your reason here with your reasoning for being unblocked. Please place this at the bottom of the page, or in a new section. This block is based on technical evidence however, meaning they have proof. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)