User talk:NorthPark1

Welcome!

Hi NorthPark1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood

In this edit to Indiana Evans, you changed She played the role of Isabella "Bella" Hartley, an aspiring singer and mermaid since the age of nine. to She played the role of Isabella "Bella" Hartley, an aspiring singer and mermaid since the age of nineteen. with the explanation that Evans certainly did not play the role since she was 9 years old. I believe you have misunderstood the original content: it did not claim that Evans played the role since the age of 9, but that the character Bella had been a mermaid since the age of 9. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

BET

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

BET Jams

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

BET Soul

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

CBS

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

CBS News (streaming service)

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

CBS Sports HQ

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

CBS Sports Network

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

CMT (American TV channel)

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Comedy Central

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Flix (TV network)

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Logo TV

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

MTV

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

MTV2

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

MTV Tres

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

NickMusic

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Nick Jr. Channel

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Nickelodeon

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Nicktoons (American TV channel)

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Paramount Network

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Pop (American TV channel)

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

Smithsonian Channel

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

TV Land

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

TeenNick

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

The Movie Channel

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

VH1

added links pointing to MTV Classic and MTV Live

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate noting

We're not in the business of over-complicating things for the reader and making reading an article's infobox complicated because of a need to remind a reader of the Nick Jr. article that BET Her exists (and likewise, a reader of Oxygen doesn't likely care about the Golf Channel), and frankly we don't give a damn at all about a 'family of networks' and a need to have twelve subsidiary companies logged in an article's infobox. Keep it simple. Stick to the facts. Realize that templates and categories are there for the reader to decide if they want to delve in more. And read WP:ACCESS too; we don't use smaller letters in infoboxes. Frankly as corporate trees seem to change on whether David Zazlav got sugar in his coffee that day, 'change for the sake of change' edits are highly discouraged and should be ascertained in full before being changed. Nate • (chatter) 20:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been removing small letters from infoboxes, so you got it backwards. And I was very respectful to you, so you should not tarnish my talk page due to a difference in editorial style. A reader of the Oxygen article who is genuinely invested in the family of networks actually WOULD care about connection to the Golf Channel, Nickelodeon, etc. If you want me to keep it simple, that’s perfectly fair and valid, and frankly there is no “we don’t give a damn” as there is no “we.” There is only YOUR opinion on this encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When I say that someone could actually want to see the full list of sister channels in the infoboxes, I’m talking about company investors, stockholders, and executives within the company who want all the information to be known. As far as the Nick Jr. article goes, Wikipedia is not a children’s website, and the former is obviously an informational article aimed at adults. NorthPark1 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to simply say if you're here only to advocate for an article version that only pleases investors and corporate executives, you're in the wrong place. The average reader is always first for Wikipedia, and they just want to find out information about something; if they want dry details, the sources, SEC.gov, and all the financial sites are there to serve them, and over-detail exists on all the PG Fandom pages. Also, an advisement on how editing is done here is not vandalism, and this is a volunteer website, so I'm never going to edit as if Bob Bakish is looking over my shoulder making sure I didn't get their quarterly profit numbers wrong and refusing to extend my Robert Half contract (someone will get it for me if I'm wrong and won't lash out unless I do it all the time). If you don't want to edit with the help of others, you'll find your time short here. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mind help, but what I don’t appreciate is my talk page being attacked and vandalized. Like I said, I’m very new to this community. So if you would like to “help” me, you could perhaps be a little more patient and supportive of your peers; especially being that you are a veteran and I can guarantee you that I WILL NOT be the first newcomer to make mistakes. We are all human, that is how we learn. This is Wikipedia, after all. The free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. NorthPark1 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Lucasfilm Games, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lucasfilm, you may be blocked from editing. Nemov (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Travis Barker, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Bowling is life (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Lori Loughlin. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move St. Augustine?

Why did you move St. Augustine without any discussion? There are many articles in Wikipedia using "St." in the title, and "St. Augustine" has been the form used for 18 years. I advise you to revert that move as soon as possible. Donald Albury 23:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this, I’m very new to this community and I’m still learning. NorthPark1 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until you have accumulated a lot of experience in Wikipedia, a good rule of thumb to follow is, if something major has been stable on Wikipedia for a while, ask about it (on the article talk page or the help desk) before changing it. Even variations in date formats (MOS:DATEFORMAT), national variations in spelling (MOS:ENGVAR), and variations in citation formatting (Wikipedia:Citation templates) are subject to protection, and should not be changed without a good reason consistent with the guidelines, and, in some cases, consensus on the talk page. While you will not always receive a response, it is courteous to announce major changes you want to make to an article on the talk page. We encourage editors to be bold, but bold edits often are reverted. Proposing major changes on the talk may reveal opposition to the changes before an edit/reversion cycle. In any case, the essay at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle provides well-regarded advice on handling editing disputes. Donald Albury 19:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NorthPark1 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Can you please stop marking non-minor edits as minor. If you're confused please review Help:Minor edit. Nemov (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthPark1 You're continuing to misuse minor edits and you're ignoring direction. You could end up being sanctioned if you keep ignoring guidelines. Nemov (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, what is a minor vs unminor edit? NorthPark1 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Help:Minor edit. Most of your edits aren't minor. Nemov (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand now, now that I have removed what not to mark as minor edits, I will not make the same mistake again. Thank you for the help and redirection. I apologize for the inconvenience as I am still learning, and am new to this community. NorthPark1 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn’t intentionally trying to ignore direction, I just didn’t get to my talk page fast enough to receive the notification of what the issue was, however; that is still my fault and I will continue to be more proactive as I learn and grow in this community. NorthPark1 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello, NorthPark1,

I was noticing that you have a lot of editors coming to your talk page over the past 10 days who are upset with your editing. If it was one editor, then it could be a different interpretation of the policies and guidelines but when multiple editors are taking issues over different aspects of your editing, well, you should take a second and rethink how you are editing on Wikipedia. There are clearly problems here. That's not unusual, there are a lot of guidelines and it takes years to learn about all of the policies and rules. The important thing though is to not ignore the criticism but learn from it and change your behavior so it is more in-line with expectations. More editors get blocked here from ignoring the red flags and persisting with their editing than get blocked for vandalism. What you don't want is to be labeled a "disruptive editor" which typically means that you are creating more work for editors who need to clean up after your mistakes. So, read the messages on your talk page, take them to heart and think how you could edit more constructively and collegially with other editors. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

This is your only warning; if you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Technopat (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unwarranted. ASG would mean giving the editor a kind note pointing out the guideline, but this is far from a trespass that justifies this type of warning. I recommend withdrawing it. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please read and understand MoS§LEAD. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, read the guideline and won’t make the same mistake in the future NorthPark1 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You may not restore your version when you know another edit disputes it. Please also read MOS:LEAD: something as significant (according to reliable sources and article coverage) as getting involved in the scandal belongs in the lead as part of a summary of the article contents. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I won’t make the same mistake again, I was only trying to make the article appear more clear. NorthPark1 (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how removing that important detail and burying it in the article body could be considered "more clear". Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with the persons occupation or career, it should be categorized under “legal issues”. NorthPark1 (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm TechnoSquirrel69. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bove’s of Vermont (company), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please make sure the citations are to reliable sources; I've provided a few on the talk page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bove’s of Vermont (company)

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 Bove’s of Vermont (company) 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 "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 deleted 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. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bove’s of Vermont (company) (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Deb was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Promotional language throughout. Clearly based on the company's own publicity material. Deb (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bove’s of Vermont (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Deb (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NorthPark1! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Deb (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bove’s of Vermont (company) (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bove’s of Vermont (company) (December 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It's borderline but I think the sources are still a bit too local and the tone could use work.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bove’s of Vermont (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company infoboxes

Please stop inappropriately adding the owner field to wholly owned divisions and subsidiaries. The parent field is used for this, and we do not denote parent ownership chains in the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which articles you are referring to so I may properly address the issue NorthPark1 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about all of the Activision Blizzard companies you are actively editing today, despite having clearly read this warning? Please, stop the disruption before you're blocked. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about when ownership differs from main parent? Isn’t there an exception to this rule? NorthPark1 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2023 (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).

NorthPark1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not fully aware of the policy regarding owner inboxes and parent’s parent companies, and thought I was making constructive edits where direct parent and principal ownership were concerned. I did not get the block warning message quickly enough, and I will not make the same mistake again.

Decline reason:

The block has expired. As such, there is no unblock left to be performed, and this appeal is procedurally declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (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.

Can you explain why you were making unsourced edits in prose that the parent of a company was different than it is? For example, reassigning companies owned and operated by Activision to its parent holding company, Activision Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was looking for sources to cite that show Activision merged with Vivendi Games in 2008, and that I believed that Activision Blizzard was actually the real parent company. If I had encounter information that said otherwise, I would have reverted my edits, because I know how to do that. NorthPark1 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because in 2008, Activision merged with Vivendi games to become Activision Blizzard. NorthPark1 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The publicly traded holding company Activision, Inc. merged with Vivendi Games to form the holding company Activision Blizzard. Activision Publishing (commonly just Activision), the company that actually ran and operates the publishing and development studios, remained (and remains, to this day) a separate entity owned by the new holding company. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see… I apologize for inadvertently making inaccurate edits. Is my block lifted or does it still stand? NorthPark1 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you received my last message? NorthPark1 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 1, 2024

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have moved Berkshire Hathaway from the parent section, to the owner section of Helzberg Diamonds. Just because a company can be the principal owner of another company doesn't mean that it isn't the parent company. WiinterU (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ollie's Bargain Outlet

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ollie's Bargain Outlet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of Italian-American food companies

Hello, NorthPark1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Italian-American food companies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your awareness

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jonathan Jackson (actor)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jonathan Jackson (actor), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]