User talk:Nwilson400

Nwilson400, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nwilson400! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like TheAafi (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Manic Pixie Dream Girl, 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. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the edit had been reposted with a source.

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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! 🌊 oceanloop 06:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do this. Thanks. Nwilson400 (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Frost. An edit you recently made to Category:Fictional characters that won an actor an Academy Award seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Frost 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frost. I created this category. I would like the change the name to "Portrayals of fictional characters that won an actor an Academy Award." Would you please direct me on how to do this? Thank you. Nwilson400 (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters that won an actor an Academy Award has been nominated for deletion

Category:Fictional characters that won an actor an Academy Award has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your category inspired me to create non-fiction one

But thanks to the person above, it has also been nominated for deletion:

Category:Portrayals of real-life people that won an actor an Academy Award

I don't get what "non-defining" implies either, as their reasoning. Either way, I support these both remaining unless provided with some Wiki knowledge on what's wrong with them. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 10:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Nwilson400 (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]