Jump to content

User talk:NorthPark1

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.237.238.203 (talk) at 13:35, 15 October 2023 (→‎October 2023: Did not remove talk page comments, only removed page links as I do not wish to get in an edit war or have embarrassing content on my talk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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! WikiDan61ChatMe!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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Information icon 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]

Information icon 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

Stop icon 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

Information icon 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]

Stop icon

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]