User talk:Mikepiper100

December 2017[edit]

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).

Mikepiper100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was hacked by someone who isn't Mike Piper. I'm Miked Piper Mikepiper100 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request, procedural decline. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (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).

Mikepiper100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was hacked Mikepiper100 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:COMPROMISED accounts can't be unblocked. Since you are claiming your account was hacked, we will not unblock this account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2017 (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.

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Papier-mâché, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your unsourced edit to Jean-Paul Sartre constitutes vandalism and has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Artificial intelligence. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sam Poo, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hacked![edit]

You say the account was hacked and make strenuous protestations about being the account's real luser. And yet, the very first edit by this account was vandalism. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]