User talk:BluePixelLOLLL
Add topicWelcome to User:BluePixelLOLLL's Talk Page!
[edit]The official talk page of BluePixelLOLLL that anyone can post on!
Your submission at Articles for creation: South Kitsap Regional Park has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by jolielover♥talk 06:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
December 2025
[edit]
wikimedia.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 ~~~~}}. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
BluePixelLOLLL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
My account is back under control. Apparently someone from my school saw me logging in, but I have spoken to the correct people and got them caught. I have also changed my password. This is the real user speaking. If you need more clarification, please let me know so I can prove it. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 23:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry; WP:COMPROMISED accounts cannot be unblocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:22, 17 December 2025 (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.
BluePixelLOLLL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Why can't I appeal my account? I have my account back. What am I supposed to do? BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 02:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We have no way to know if you are the creator of the account or the person who took control of the account pretending to be the creator of the account. This is why compromised accounts are not unblocked. See WP:COMPROMISED for more information. Take this as a life lesson to better secure your online accounts against use by others. At least it wasn't your bank account. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2025 (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.
- When I ask you why you're making pointless edits, you say your account has been compromised. And when I block you for compromised account, you're suddenly back in control. Very convenient.
- While waiting for another admin to come and review your appeal (such as it is), why don't you answer my original question – why were you trying to inflate your edit count with such obviously useless, borderline vandalism, edits? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing That's because I was hacked. Then I got it back. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 14:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- BluePixel, if it was a hacker that was adding useless characters to articles and then removing characters one by one to fatten up the edit count, then why were there your typical edits in between those suspicious incidents? It strains belief beyond the breaking point that a hacker would make a bunch of gaming edits to no end, then suddenly discuss improving your South Kitsap article on Teahouse and continue your identical pattern of sandbox/userpage tinkering, and then suddenly resume making suspicious edits. Let's just say that would be a rather...unusual pattern for a hacker. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know, I'm on Wikipedia at different times every day, so they could've edited while I was off, but that's just me talking. Nearly all of the constructive edits were made by me. I've made my mistakes, everyone has, but I wouldn't just do a bunch of weird edits for no apparent reason.
- Just tell me how to fix this, that's all I ask. Please. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 23:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Literally all the edits were made at nearly the same time you were making real edits, but never interspersed with the real edits, meaning this hacker was somehow editing your account exactly before or after you made real edits. You also somehow supposedly found out about the hack, spoke to the school, and "got them caught" within hours, which, for anyone who has dealt with improper use of a login on a large shared internet resource, is an implausible outcome at an implausible speed. I have a strong suspicion that the real story is far simpler, and your best chance of being unblocked is to tell it. Anyway, I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 02:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Literally all the edits were made at nearly the same time you were making real edits, but never interspersed with the real edits, meaning this hacker was somehow editing your account exactly before or after you made real edits. You also somehow supposedly found out about the hack, spoke to the school, and "got them caught" within hours, which, for anyone who has dealt with improper use of a login on a large shared internet resource, is an implausible outcome at an implausible speed. I have a strong suspicion that the real story is far simpler, and your best chance of being unblocked is to tell it. Anyway, I wish you the best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- BluePixel, if it was a hacker that was adding useless characters to articles and then removing characters one by one to fatten up the edit count, then why were there your typical edits in between those suspicious incidents? It strains belief beyond the breaking point that a hacker would make a bunch of gaming edits to no end, then suddenly discuss improving your South Kitsap article on Teahouse and continue your identical pattern of sandbox/userpage tinkering, and then suddenly resume making suspicious edits. Let's just say that would be a rather...unusual pattern for a hacker. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hackers can not do that kind of identical patterns edits (adding
removing characters one by one to fatten up the edit count
). If that was really a hacker, they would have change your password or make one or two or three messy edits like (blanking articles, User pages without reverting themselves tho).oh plus the edit here .Btw I didn't know that Wikipedia had milestones, so thanks for telling me that.
Oh really?...If you can be able to find article that was publish in 2010 and compare with your article here You don't know that Wikipedia had milestons?. Just make your story straight please. Goodluck. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)- If I told this 'story straight', do I get unblocked? I really don't understand what you mean here. Just tell me what I have to do to get my account unblocked. Please. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 23:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Do I? BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 01:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's no guarantee you'll be unblocked; you'll need an administrator to trust you. However, there's a much greater chance of earning that trust, whether now or in the future, if people believe you are telling the full truth and the complete story. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
BluePixelLOLLL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Hi Moderator, I want to apologize for my previous actions. I made unconstructive edits, and when I was asked about it, I lied about my account being hacked. This was wrong, and I take full responsibility for both the edits and the lie. I understand that lying most likely broke your trust in me, and I regret doing it. I want to be considered now and promise to contribute constructively in the future.
I agree to follow the community's view on the policies you've transgressed.
I now know what I mustn't do, and I won't do it again.
I want to make it clear that it will never happen again, and I know how to avoid a repeat.
I hope you can consider lifting the ban, but I fully respect your decision. Thank you for taking the time to read this. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 01:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This was AI generated(100% certain according to zeroGPT). Such requests are declined without consideration, because we want to hear from you, not a computer program. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 January 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.
BluePixelLOLLL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Hello Wikipedia mods and admins, I am sending this because I would like one more chance at editing constructively on Wikipedia. I have made edits that I pretty much knew were not constructive, and when I was confronted, I never owned up to it and told a fib about being hacked. The reason I WAS vandalizing was because I was trying to get up to 500 edits. I never knew this would be the outcome. I want to apologize, I want to fix it by doing reasonable edits, not spam, and I want to continue to contribute to one of the biggest info sites on the internet. If you still think "He is using AI", I promise you, I'm not. I'm truly not. I will follow the guidelines of Wikipedia that the community has in set. I will never make edits when it is inappropriate to do so. I will be a constructive Wikipedian. I fully know that it was unconstructive and pretty much vandalism. However, I want to continue editing the site in good faith, as mentioned on my user page. I want to build onto this free encyclopedia platform and expand the free knowledge for everyone using it. If this does get accepted, I can promise you that I will do every little thing in this message. If this doesn't get accepted, oh well, I tried. I hope you have a great day, Sincerely, BluePixelLOLLL
Decline reason:
Your account was compromised. We will not consider these requests. We have no way to tell if you are lying now ("told a fib about being hacked") or were lying before. Either way, this is the end of the line. Yamla (talk) 17:39, 4 January 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.
- @Yamla: I was joking around. CHECK YOUR LOGS. I want to edit again. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 18:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- I made the whole compromise thing up. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 18:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
You made your bed; you lie in it. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.
No. You went out of your way to demonstrate you are not willing to be truthful here and are not willing to take responsibility for your bad behaviour. Please do not email me again. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet banned from UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Worth noting they just spammed #wikipedia-en-help. qcne (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Talk page access restored
[edit]Hi BluePixelLOLLL, I'm restoring access to your talk page following your UTRS appeal, and I'm going to copy over the relevant part of my message from the UTRS interface which had the following guidance that you agreed to about future unblock requests: "you can say how you understand the claims of a compromised account were inappropriate [...] you can explain how the edits prior to your block were inappropriate, and you can give an example of helpful contributions you would make if you weren't blocked [...] you would need to understand that your appeal may take some time, and may even be declined. You should not rush other editors or administrators to respond to your request, and you should take their feedback with sincerity.
"
Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Post-UTRS appeal
[edit]BluePixelLOLLL (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal and for re-adding my talk page access so I could submit my request on-wiki. I appreciate the guide that Bobby Cohn gave to me, and I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about it before typing this appeal. I now understand that saying that my account had been compromised or "hacked" was really inappropriate. It was dishonest, and it misled the administrators who reviewed my appeals. By "just joking around", I damaged my own credibility and made it really hard for other editors to trust what I said. Looking back, I realize that being honest is necessary when communicating with you administrators and other editors, and I wish that I had not made that false claim. I also understand why my editing before the block was inappropriate. I was focused on this mindset of increasing my edit count rather than making constructive improvements to articles, and many of my edits did not add anything to them. I now understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be based off of constructive contributions, and definitely not the number of edits an account has. If I actually focused on improving articles, instead of reaching one of my milestones, I could have contributed much more positively. If I were unblocked from English Wikipedia I would focus on making edits that improve its articles. For example, I would work on fixing grammar and formatting in places that need it, I would add good, reliable sources to support information, along with correcting inaccurate info with the correct citations. I want to make other improvements to help the people who use Wikipedia rather than simply trying to increase my own edit count. My goal would be to make each edit worth it. I also want to re-enter my understanding that rebuilding trust takes time. I know that administrators take their time to review appeals and that my appeal may take a long time to be reviewed plus considered. I will not rush anyone for a response as I will be patient in waiting, and I will accept any feedback or decision with a good mindset, even if my appeal gets declined. I know now that trust is something that I have to get back through my actions. If I am given another chance to contribute positively, I want to demonstrate it through my edits that I have learned from my mistakes and can edit responsibly with Wikipedia's guidelines, rules, and regs in mind. Thank you for taking the time to read my appeal, and thank you so much for deciding to help me through my block.
Decline reason:
This request says the right things, but I am given pause by the note above that you spammed a Wikipedia discord channel about your case 4 months ago, which I think invalidates what would otherwise be a good standard offer request. I would insist that you try contributing more on other Wikimedia projects like Simple Wikipedia before requesting an unblock here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 17 July 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.
- @Rosguill: Thank you for your review on my appeal and for your feedback. I understand your feedback, and I appreciate you explaining. Before I step back from unblock requesting, could you please tell me what you would consider a good period of time of constructive contributions on another Wikipedia project before I can submit another appeal? I want to make sure I follow the guide you gave me instead of appealing too soon. BluePixelLOLLL (talk • Signaturebook) 20:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)