User talk:Allen terry

September 2014

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Jana Kramer, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Allen

I have a 8 month old niece, I just love to death. I'm currently single, with no kids. I have one sibling and both parents are still living. I live with my parents still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.153.244 (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen terry, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Allen terry! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Ruah vandalism

Do not continue to vandalize Wikipedia by renaming articles to bullish titles, such as what you did at Daniela Ruah. If you continue, don't bother be surprised if you get reported and/or blocked from editing Wikipedia. IPadPerson (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Cassidy Hubbarth ESPN .jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cassidy Hubbarth ESPN .jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 04:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Cassidy Hurbbarth ESPN.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cassidy Hurbbarth ESPN.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 04:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scottie Thompson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Guides]], and was credited as associate editor for the travel book ''Let's Go: Vietnam''.<ref>[http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/66616475 Vietnam.[WorldCat.org]]</
[Armand Assante]]). She appeared regularly throughout season 4 and left the show in early season 5 (she reappeared later that season in the episode ''(Internal Affairs''). She then filmed the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scottie Thompson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Guides]], and was credited as associate editor for the travel book ''Let's Go: Vietnam''.<ref>[http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/66616475 Vietnam.[WorldCat.org]]</
[Armand Assante]]). She appeared regularly throughout season 4 and left the show in early season 5 (she reappeared later that season in the episode ''Internal Affairs''. She then filmed the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Terry Shook has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for this specific type of article, you may want to check out our criterion for biographies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Melanie Specht may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Terry Shook

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 Terry Shook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Deunanknute (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Specht

Please do not create test articles in user space. I've moved your Melanie Specht article back to your sandbox. That's what sandboxes are for. Please work on it there. Thanks --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've created User:Melanie Specht two more times. I appreciate your efforts to learn about editing, but please don't create user pages for nonexistent users. Creating pages in your own userspace (pages like User:Allen terry/ArticleTitle; more info at WP:UP#SUB) are fine; however, other pages beginning with User: are not in your userspace, so you shouldn't create them. I tagged User:Melanie Specht for deletion once as per the speedy deletion criterion for userpages of nonexistent users and Lixxx235 has done so again. Hope that helps. Good luck and have fun. ekips 39 04:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've again deleted the page you created at User:Melanie Specht. As I noted earlier, you should not move your test pages into userspace. You have your sandbox version still in your own userspace at User:Allen terry/sandbox/Melanie Specht. Do you testing there, please. If you continue to create invalid user pages, you risk temporarily losing your ability to edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry A. Shook

Your article Terry A. Shook has been deleted. It appears you made the article about yourself, and it fails our notability guidelines. As a courtesy, I moved it to your userspace sandbox, in case you wanted to use the content for your personal user page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Allen terry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you created appears to be an article about yourself. This is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.

The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Terry A. Shook

Hello Allen terry,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Terry A. Shook for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kges1901 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allen Shook

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 Allen Shook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Allen Shook. Deunanknute (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Terry A. Shook

Hello Allen terry,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Terry A. Shook for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wgolf (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I simply do not believe that you are Danielle Panabaker and therefore you should not be taking the name of another, living person. I have blocked you. I am fully prepared to believe that you are Terry Allen Shook (born June 16, 1988), an auto repairman in Long View, North Carolina. If you change your name back to Allen terry (talk · contribs) or any non-impersonating name, I am perfectly happy for the bureaucrat who does the move to unblock you even though you do not seem to have much to offer Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my user name back ... if I do it again I'll just take the standard offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen terry (talk • contribs)

Why on earth should you change your user name again? Please reply. Indeed, please explain why you have this desire to create pseudo user pages matching bio articles, eg. User:Melanie Specht? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I done it to make the page look like a real page...so I can be a better editor. This won't happen again I promise, believe me. You said if I change my username back I might get unblocked. User:Allen terry 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You have been unblocked. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating

I got approved to the change user name so what's the problem..why didn't I get declined if I'm impersonating Danielle Panabaker then. I would change it back but I got blocked...so I cant. Thanks User:Allen terry February 7 17:29

Nomination of Allen Shook for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allen Shook 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/Allen Shook until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allen Shook

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Allen Shook, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Widefox; talk 23:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Allen Shook. [1] Widefox; talk 00:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

(all edits)

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Widefox; talk 08:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Allen Shook requesting that it be protected against recreation. This has been done because the article appears to be a recreation, under a different title, of an article which is itself currently protected against recreation. Please note that titles used to circumvent the protection policy are often given the same level of protection as the original title the author is trying to circumvent.

If you feel that the topic of the article meets our inclusion guidelines, please request a deletion review or use a request for unprotection instead.

Please note that repeated recreation of an article against a consensus to delete it is considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. Thank you.Don't create another one. They weren't WP:SALTed but I've requested them all to be from now on. Terry A. Shook, Allen Shook, Terry Shook Widefox; talk 00:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did at Melanie Specht (and also see above) and previously to Wikipedia:Daniela Ruah Filmography, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. This is also your notification that the latter page will be deleted. Widefox; talk 08:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here~~~~}}.

19:24, 27 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I block, because I trying to create a article.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2015 (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.

Added in right place after user placed appeal in wrong place. Gparyani (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jerry Shook

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 Jerry Shook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Seagull123 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A request has been filed for the title of Jerry Shook requesting that it be added to the title blacklist. This has been done because the article appears to be a recreation, under a different title, of an article which is itself currently protected against recreation. Please note that titles used to circumvent the protection policy are often given the same level of protection as the original title the author is trying to circumvent, or are added to the title blacklist.

If you feel that the topic of the article meets our inclusion guidelines, please request a deletion review or use a request for unprotection instead.

Please note that repeated recreation of an article against a consensus to delete it is considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to User:Emily Osment, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Continued disruption after being blocked. Widefox; talk 22:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Allen terry/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Allen terry/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Widefox; talk 22:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ;}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right spot I don't know if it is because I got a threat of a block if I didn't put it in the right spot.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand my block indefinitely...for what I probably should be block a month for creating Jerry Shook article but my sandbox page is my test page to practice on my editing, so why is it deleted too.

Decline reason:

We had to clean up after you for quite some time. You have been blocked for the same behaviour before. I see no indication you wouldn't keep up the same conduct if you were unblocked in a month. I can't tell what you intended with your sandbox, but firstly, given your past actions I doubt it would have improved the encyclopedia, and secondly, copy-pasting a Wikipedia article without attributing the original editors is a violation of the terms of our CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and thus a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2015 (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.

Added in right place after user misplaced reason. Gparyani (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand my user page is where I can write about myself and don't create unrealistic people, my sandbox is for practice on editing without copying articles and creating user page name after title of article....so I really just want to help on Wikipedia if I'm blocked I can't get notice...believe me I want to be a better editor... right now I'm just trying to learn. so give one last chance please.

Decline reason:

In the eight months since you created this account, you have done some trivial edits which may be regarded as constructive (such as updating numbers of episodes) but they have been totally swamped by the time of other editors and administrators which has been wasted on dealing with your disruptive editing. Even after short blocks, you continued to edit in exactly the same way as before, and your comments on this page give little indication that you understand why you were blocked. I see no evidence whatever that you are likely to suddenly start doing better now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (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.

Added correctly after misplaced reason, again. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 01:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've had this account since September of last year, and you've engaged in the same sort of behavior after repeated warnings. If you haven't learned by now what you're doing wrong... --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 01:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I really don't understand what editing number of episodes got to do with the reason I'm blocked...I thought I was blocked for creating unnecessary articles of non realistic people's over and over not number of episodes. I really have learned if you mess up you probably won't edit again, that's all I want to do is edit without doing something to get me blocked or possibly banned.

Decline reason:

I am declining for the same reasons JamesBWatson gave in your last unblock request. Mainly, "I see no evidence whatever that you are likely to suddenly start doing better now." Come back in a few years and tell us what sort of edits you will make, and how you will be a net positive. If you make another unblock request, your talk page access may be revoked without further notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2015 (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.

Once again, please STOP misplacing your unblock requests! If you keep at it, we may prevent you from editing your talk page. Gparyani (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully re-read the message I posted when declining your one of your unblock requests. I really honestly can't see how anyone could possibly read what I wrote as saying that editing numbers of episodes was a reason for the block. If you really thought it said that then I wonder whether you have sufficient ability to follow written English prose to be able to contribute to the encyclopaedia effectively. If you will read what I wrote carefully enough, you may see that I gave the updating of numbers of episodes as one example of editing that could be regarded as constructive, but went on to say that constructive edits such as those were "swamped" by other editing which was disruptive. It was those other edits which led to the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what am I supposed to do if no cares what I say if everyone just wants me off of Wikipedia as editor sounds...don't matter what I say just seems nobody cares. It feels like the administrators are the cops I'm the felon, once your a felon nobody listens to you, or won't give you a chance of doing better. There's no evidence because nobody give me a chance to change. How can I prove I can do better if nobody will let me?

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).

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

Request reason:

So what am I supposed to do if no cares what I say if everyone just wants me off of Wikipedia as editor...don't matter what I say just seems nobody cares. It feels like the administrators are the cops I'm the felon, once your a felon nobody listens to you, or won't give you a chance of doing better. There's no evidence because nobody give me a chance to change. How can I prove I can do better if nobody will let me?

Decline reason:

I see no evidence, looking at the large number of warnings you have received, that there is currently any place for you here. I have, after some consideration, not prevented you from editing on this page, but it seems very likely that the next admin will do so unless you leave, as has been suggested, a very long time until your next request. A long time means a time measured in years. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:50, 10 June 2015 (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.

Misplaced AGAIN! Gparyani (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should find a Wikia that you can edit. Or create your own Wikia, then you can edit it however you wish. I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for you, imho. Sorry. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new direction

Allen terry, please, please do not post again. The chance of you being unblocked now is 0.000001%. Find another wiki or something -- a new beginning elsewhere. Come back in a few years and read all of this and look at your edits. You will probably see how much you have changed and grown. Then and only then, tell us that you understand what went wrong and your chance of being unblocked will probably be 99.99999%. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong am I making too many requests or did the editor that's keeps on telling me I put my request in the wrong spot tell you to tell to stop making request...everyone just want to play bad cop and say the hell with me, seems like you get blocked indefinitely no wants you ever back so what everyone's grudge against me. I'm try to do better but everyone's telling to shut the hell up, because your done editing forever. 00:39, 11 June 2015‎ Allen terry

He was right to make that request.
You should examine your own conduct. That is where the problem is.
Nobody has a grudge. We just want the disruption to stop. Unblocking you means a high likelihood of continued disruption.
My time/energy budget on this matter is at an end.
If you post here again, it may affect your chances of being unblocked if/when you return.
If you post here again, you may have your talk page access revoked without further notice.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and our budget is also over, basically. That we gave you a series of temporary blocks instead of blocking you indefinitely in the first place, that we allowed you to edit your talk page even after four unconvincing unblock requests (usually, we revoke access after three, and sometimes even just two), and that we put your unblock requests in the right place instead of just leaving them (and thus not letting them get through) a whole four times is a huge leniency on our part. We gave you enough chances to improve, but you remained disruptive. Your loss. Gparyani (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not gravedance. Nothing should be posted to encourage him to respond. Allen, please do not respond. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked by another admin. If you wish to be unblocked, please wait a couple of years, then read the guide to appealing blocks. Then visit WP:UTRS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]