User talk:Roy Howard Mills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Admin request

Information icon Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant to undo that one but you were VERY quick, so well done to you. Basically I was using the article as a template for requesting my own application and I forgot that I was still inside that article. Thanks all the same.
talk) 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I figured that it's what you were doing. No worries; all fixed! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I highly recommend that you read
RFA application. You'll save yourself a lot of time and pain by doing so :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep. Read it now and it appears I was premature. Best to keep it as a skeleton base for the big day!! :)
talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

April 2016

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Fudgepack, is offensive [1]. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 10:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and rename

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Roy Howard Mills (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I need my edits to remain in tact and tethered to my history, I have created pages, and this also means my application for administration should remain in tact, at least so it be known that I have come to this project with high ambitions.

Thanks

talk) (soon to be Roy Howard Mills) 22:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

Concerts at Knebworth House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Darkness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Please, don't post suspicions at SPI unless you have some actual evidence, as it just causes bad blood if the accusation is incorrect. Additionally, please don't ask questions about the contents of deleted content, or the exact reasons for which someone was blocked; by definition, if something's deleted, it's because there's a reason we don't want it seen, and given that you don't have access to deleted contributions or checkuser data, you can't see the histories so comments like "doesn't appear to have made a single contribution" aren't helpful. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but sock investigations are a complex area which are really best left to those with the experience and tools to analyse patterns fully; if you want to help on Wikipedia, there are a lot of places where your help would be valuable. ‑ 

Iridescent 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry I didn't know about "deleted contributions" being out of public view. I take your points, all of them. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to and extend the comments from Iridescent above, and to say, please slow down. You are proceeding WAY too fast, and trying WAY to hard, to do things you are not yet competent to do. Recent example: at an SPI investigation you said you thought sysops are able to see users' IP addresses. Someone who doesn't know the difference between an

WP:NOTYET; worse, the fact that they applied too soon when they had no idea what adminship is about will be held against then in future RfA applications. I would suggest you get that RfA page deleted (you can ask any administrator, or simply blank the page), but that is up to you. I do suggest you put your burning ambition aside and just concentrate on being a good editor here. You have been creating content and improving articles; that's good, and that is what you need to do for now. Continue to explore areas that interest you, not because you are eager to advance, but just because they interest you. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, but please act as if you are here to build an encyclopedia, rather than to attain positions of power and prestige for yourself. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, got all that. Best thing to do with the request for adminship is to leave it dormant. Editors need to know I am keen but at least I will avoid editing it for a good year let's say. I need to get other tools first, ability to review pages and be a pending change reviewer etc. Or even a checkuser might be a nice thing to go for. To be honest Melanie, I really now have nothing more to add at the SPI, I've given all the evidence I can provide so there's no point me hanging around any longer. So from here on in, unless my name is called (which I doubt), I won't return to that page. It's fresh avenues from here!!!! Roy Howard Mills (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Farnham edit warring

FYI : All editors are expected to follow

WP: MOS reason for your removal of this information from the lead section then provide it on the article talk page and ping me about it. Otherwise the information remains as it is in accordance with common practice in multiple articles and in accordance with the status quo principles. Afterwriting (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You're Back in the Room edit warring

I see that you are engaged in an edit war with another user at

WP:EW if you do it again. You have not offered any explanation for your edits and have not attempted to discuss the issues at the talk page. That is what you should do. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you Melanie but 86.158.232.106 is a vandal who was blanking information and not using the talk page, I was up against disruptive editing. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain why you think so. You have said nothing at the talk page, and your edit summaries of "(no edit summary)", "Stop mucking around", and "Stop this now" are completely unhelpful. Helpful edit summaries would be things like "unexplained removal of content", "restoring referenced content", "removing unsourced content", and the like. Simply reverting without explanation, or worse yet reverting with unpleasant comments to the other party, are likely to be interpreted as edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in future I'll use the summary more. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has no one welcomed you yet?

welcome to Wikipedia, Roy Howard Mills. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions
. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on

sign your name
using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

helpme
}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 23:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you Andy! A nicest of gestures!!!! Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roy_Howard_Mills&oldid=1042491251"