User talk:Aubreeprincess: Difference between revisions

Hi! 🙂 Great work expanding the Little Einsteins article. I’ve noticed you’ve been using ProQuest for cituations.

The reason I ask is because I mainly use Gale Research and Newspapers.com (both are also available via the Wikipedia library, and links from Gale can be archived via the Wayback Machine and the same is for Newspapers.com clippings ). ProQuest links cannot be archived and and I wanted replace the links on the Little Einsteins page with content already available on those 2 sites per Wikipedia:Verifiability. (since not everyone has access that service)

Was wondering if you can help with that. Timur9008 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to replace the links with them from Gale Research and Newspapers.com. And to be honest, I did not even know that ProQuest could not be archived. But thanks for letting me know! Aubreeprincess (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the links! 🙂 Timur9008 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Footballnerd2007. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to A Goofy Movie have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I wasn’t exactly sure if it needed work because it did attain Good article status, but maybe their vision was different from mine, especially that I’ve gotten more experience over the years. I wanted to expand and fix mistakes, but it is harder when it is in fact in Good article status because it can cause conflicts, even if it is in fact a bolder edit. Maybe there are exceptions, but anyways, I just created a sandbox to experiment. Thank you so much!!! Aubreeprincess (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just so you know, MikeAllen (talk · contribs) fixed the article up and said your edits weren’t vandalism. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 13:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! Finally, someone recognized it! I knew it was a mistake. Apparently, it was mistaken for vandalism. I felt like a loser for a while until you told me about it, lol. Thank you so much for letting me know! Aubreeprincess (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 14:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.