Talk:Nestlé Milk Chocolate

I have changed this to a redirect to Nestlé, again. The article, such as it is, contains no more information than the title. If Nestlé Milk Chocolate has had some long and interesting history, then by all means make an article out of that. Saying "Nestlé Milk Chocolate is a kind of milk chocolate made by Nestlé" is just silly, and makes for a useless article. tregoweth 15:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Recreating This Article
i have decided to resurrect this article, I made it much more descriptive, though please note this is a work in progress. Please do not delete this again, and I shall do my best to improve this article reguraly. Feel free to add more content, and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolboygcp (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nestlé Milk Chocolate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130214063853/http://www.nestleusa.com/en/Brands/Chocolate/Nestle-Milk-Chocolate to http://www.nestleusa.com/en/brands/chocolate/Nestle-Milk-Chocolate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.goldenswanchocolate.com/about-us/ http://peterschocolate.com/pages/history.html http://time.com/8195/13-most-influential-candy-bars-of-all-time/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  22:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Article is now far more insightful
Before, the wiki article was a mess with grammatical errors, no sources, and a general lack of understanding of the content. With the addition of my recent edits, the article now seems far more substantiated and insightful than it ever was before. NeonHD7 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)