User talk:Allenroyboy

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

my change had noting to do with the rescue of the link. but rather went back to fix the previous change that caused the orphaned link in the first place. Allenroyboy (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responce for 70 weeks additions

Hi there, You wrote something on my user page, which I responded to. I think, however, that you should have put your comment on the discussion tab of my user page, similar to here. Please move your comment over. Nossond (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list

The references (not notes) are found in the article (e.g.,1,2,3). That's the way all the other Wiki articles are. I corrected wiseman hypothesis only to have you revert the incorrect format. The books were down with the other further reading (per Supernova). Either self revert the correction or go in and correct it yourself since you've taken the interest. 174.125.75.63 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post fixed 174.125.75.63 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The supernova format is somewhat out of date. the template reflist should really be called the notelist but it is too late to change. Allenroyboy (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

{{adminhelp}} What the .....? I go on Vaca and come back and find myself blocked as a sockpupet??

From what I have read it seems that I and other editors have used the same URLs. I access the internet using my smartphone as a wifi on a 3G net work. I have learned enough to know that each time I log in I am assigned a different URL. That means that yesterday I had a different URL than now. 5 hours ago I had a different URL. 1 hour ago I had a different URL. 5 minutes ago I had a different URL. And 1 hour from now I will have a different URL. I have no idea what my URL is or what it is going to be.

This also means that of the millions of smartphone, Iphone, Ipad, tablet, netbook, etc. userws some of them are likely to be given, at some time or another, some of the very same URLs that I have had and that I will have. I cannot be responsible for the content of other possible WP editors that access the internet using the 3G and 4G networks who may have have been randomly assigned URLs that I may have randomly been assigned also. Allenroyboy (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal a block by using the instructions at WP:GAB. You may wish to view the investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive - remember the designation as a sockpuppet is not just down to IP address, checkusers can access other logged data, and investigators will also view the pages edited vs. the times of the various edits by different sockpuppets. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

What the .....? I go on Vaca and come back and find myself blocked as a sockpupet?? From what I have read it seems that I and other editors have used the same URLs. I access the internet using my smartphone as a wifi on a 3G net work. I have learned enough to know that each time I log in I am assigned a different URL. That means that yesterday I had a different URL than now. 5 hours ago I had a different URL. 1 hour ago I had a different URL. 5 minutes ago I had a different URL. And 1 hour from now I will have a different URL. I have no idea what my URL is or what it is going to be. This also means that of the millions of smartphone, Iphone, Ipad, tablet, netbook, etc. users some of them are likely to be given, at some time or another, some of the very same URLs that I have had and that I will have. The URL I'm using now will be used by someone else after I log off. I cannot be responsible for the content of other possible WP editors that access the internet using the 3G and 4G networks who may have have been randomly assigned URLs that I may have randomly been assigned also. Allenroyboy (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When IP addresses are randomly recycled and applied to millions of users, there is no way to know if the same device is being used from time to time. I'm certain that I have used several hundred different IP addresses because of the 3G network. that one or two of them were used also by other 3G or 4G users who also have certainly used many different IP addresses is insignificant and to be expected. Just because a few of the same topics are edited using the same IP is irrelevant and insignificant. This is highly unfair. Allenroyboy (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

ChecuUser-confirmed operator of multiple accounts in violation of policy. The accounts edited the same topics using the same device – the notion that this is the work of multiple unrelated people is implausible. —DoRD (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2011 (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 am pretty sure you mean IP address rather than URL. In any case, you were blocked for operating multiple accounts in a manner inconsistent with policy as shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy. The determination was based on technical and behavioral evidence, so you might want to address that in your unblock request. —DoRD (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they all edit the exact same topics you do? –MuZemike 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what.... No one else edits these topics??? That the millions of cellphone or iPad users may use the same IP address at any time seriously undermines the significance of editing the same topics. ----

??

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).

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

Request reason:

I use verizon to access the internet. I just logged on and and found that the IP I was randomly supplied by Verizon has received a warning that it may be blocked by WP because some other user was disruptive on WP! I have no control over which IP I am randomly assigned by Verizon, nor do I have control over when I am assigned them. This is evidence of what I said before, others have edited WP using IPs to which I am later randomly assigned and which I have no control over and then I am blamed for sockpuppetry. This is nonsense!

Decline reason:

I don't see any indication you've been editing with this account; what account have you been using? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:57, 6 February 2012 (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.

Response:
I have not been able to edit on WP since my account was blocked because of IP abuse by others. I just happened to try searching on WP today when I found a notice to the IP which Verizon had just assigned to me, and found that someone else had abused WP on that IP. I'm showing that this is an illustration of what happened before, where I was blocked for the actions of others. I have no control over the IP I am given. And Verizon has given me a different IP even now. It is not uncommon to have several different IPs assigned in a single day and even have IPs changed while on the internet.

You were not blocked because of IP abuse by others; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, as confirmed by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of sockpuppet because others got assigned the same Verizon IP that I had been assigned, which was out of my control. I cannot be held responsible for what others did just because they had been assigned IPs that I had also used. Allenroyboy (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppet investigation is completely bogus!!! Others were assigned the same IPs that I had at different times. I cannot help it if other people edit some of the same things I do. Allenroyboy (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dan7n8parallel.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dan7n8parallel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]