User talk:Aubreeprincess

Hello, I'm FlightTime. Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Heart (Heart album) even if you provide a/some source(s), you'll still need to start a discussion on the article talk page to allow editors who regular watch that page a chance to discuss the reliability of the source(s) you provided. One reason is, genre sources can easily be considered an opinion and not fact. Genre's are a touchy subject here on Wikipedia and without discussion/consensus, regardless of your source(s), your addition or removal will most likely be reverted. Your edit has been reverted and archived in the page history for now.

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aladdin (1992 Disney film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You removed referenced info replaced it with unsourced info. Assertion that the reliable sources were propaganda is not sufficient justification for adding unsourced info Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--- Hello, I really apologize from what I done; I will have good faith next time this happens. It is most likely because I get busy at one point at the time, and I wanted that to be changed immediately (from my mental disorder; I've been an Aladdin fan for a while, so that's why I know this, and I easily feel frustrated and upset when my edits get reverted, especially I know they're bold enough). I tried to make it as bold as possible. At this time, I did not remove the citation. However, at this time, the official release date for the United States needs a citation, due to controversial reasons. November 11, from what I see, looks like a limited release, and it needs another citation to confirm where the limited release is from, especially for some reason, Box Office Mojo had the box office records for the week of November 13-19, 1992, and that it does not have the two specific locations revealed in the citation (IMDb says Los Angeles (probably in the El Capitan Theatre) and New York (probably in New York City, but it is an unreliable source, so the first reverted edit I made, I replaced it with this information and added the template for "Citation needed"). It just looked a little bit too unreliable. And also, the reason why I justified that it's propaganda like that is because the release date on the info box is vague. It needs to be specified whether it is a limited release or not. Also, it would be best that the official release date would also be on the info box besides the limited release date.

So since this is kind of controversial, I think it would be best to discuss it on the talk page because the official release date needs an official citation, and starting an edit war would be a problem... I don't want that! --- Please, also, only add the source back instead of reverting my second time editing that day because that is not good faith, in my opinion. It is obviously way better. I already know what to do, even if my brain's still developing. - Truly yours, Aubreeprincess (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the talk page about this. We go with what we can source and also see WP:FILMRELEASE. Don't add info with a citation needed tags per WP:BURDEN. Until this is decided via a talk page concencus, keep article as it as per WP:STATUSQUO. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muppet Babies (1984 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Baker and Marty Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muppet Babies (1984 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesse White.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series) episodes, 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. Waxworker (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. You probably don't know me really well, which is why you told me about it, but... actually, I have found a reliable source to the first airing date for the first season. I am part of the Wikipedia Library, and I actually found a reliable source on Newspapers.com and figured out that the series' debut actually varies, depending on its area. For example, the earliest known debut date I could ever find for the series was on September 5, 1983 on WFSL-TV in Lansing, Michigan, according to Lansing State Journal, while according to Los Angeles Times, KTLA in Los Angeles, California does not air the series until September 19, 1983. Both of them says that they would air the show weekdays, so I would assume the first season should follow the airing dates for WFSL-TV since it was one of the first stations to air the show. So if the series started on September 5, 1983, on WFSL-TV, it should go from September 5-9, 1983, then from September 12-16, 1983. As for the second season, the airing dates I replaced before they were undone were actually from the official broadcast schedule from DIC Audiovisuel. It's pretty reliable because it is actually published from the company associated with the series, although it's from Imgur. By the way, I usually don't do anything wrong, but thanks for reminding me about it. I didn't know that I have to add reliable sources to the airing dates in the article until now. I want to thank myself because the main article wasn't majorly changed since I added reliable sources to this one, but I'll fix it, or you can fix it, unless you want me to leave anything for now until I figure it out. And please be aware, I wanna make sure that there was not a conflict about the airing dates. Let me see what you think, because I wanna make sure it's okay. (And P.S. you overwhelmed me because I thought I was doing something wrong)

Sources I was talking about:

• Lansing: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/204738623/?terms=inspector%20gadget&match=1
• Los Angeles: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/633675195/?terms=inspector%20gadget&match=1
• Season 2 Schedule: https://imgur.com/a/e85ABga

Thanks for the message - Aubreeprincess (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE! I fixed the article with added sources I did not add before. If there are any problems, please either fix the article or undo my edit, and let me know. - Aubreeprincess (talk)

Thank you for adding refs for the dates! Unexplained & unsourced date changes on cartoons is a common issue and being able to verify the new dates is important. Waxworker (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Color of Silence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Henderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiffany (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gazette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Clone High, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oop, I was still in the process of editing the article, and this came up. Anyways, I apologize about saying or acting like that. Even though I know better and that I respect and welcome editors to edit whatever they want, I wanted to make sure that the article is in good shape to be in good article status at some point soon, and that everything is not messed up while editing for a long time. At one point, I had to redo my edit on The Proud Family article because someone posted their edit before I did. I also have a fear of change and have trauma in the past whenever I did something wrong on here. The main reason why I do edit a lot was so I can still have access to the Wikipedia Library, which I've been part of it for a while now, and if I haven't posted 10 edits in the last 30 days, then I won't have access to it. Btw, I also made several edits, saying "Do not develop until I said so", etc. I feel like I acted like a leader too much, so I'll give an apology on that as well. I'm pretty sure that's what you were talking about, but I obviously get it. I get addicted to editing at times, and I'm passionate about what I do, trying to make sure something isn't messy. I'm usually in good faith, but I do get bossy. Also, I'm usually not mean, so I think it's a good idea to not say that again because it might hurt the editor's feelings. But anyways, thanks for letting know about this. I'll keep in mind about it in the future - Aubreeprincess (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response, my warning definitely wasn't in regard to your content contributions, just the edit summaries. You might consider using {{In use}} or {{Under construction}} while you're making major edits to [hopefully] avoid conflicts in the future. If you do, just make sure to remove them when you're done. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you! Aubreeprincess (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman, Trey Parker, and Matt Stone, June 23, 1999.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman in the 1960s.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman 1980.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally deleted the images that were included in the article. Apparently, there is no evidence of whether it's in Fair use or it's freely licensed. I want to give an apology for doing so. The only reason why I added them was for readers to see the picture of the biography of the person better and to understand the context for the readers, especially with those that have disabilities (like me, I am diagnosed with autism and ADHD as a toddler). If there is a photo of Bergman that is explicitly stated that it has free or copyrighted license and can be used on the article to justify the context better, please let me know.

I am here to help expand and clean up the article for reassessment, and I worked really hard to contribute as much as I could without having problems, but this is the first time I violated the image use policies without knowing something important. However, these photos might be free, but I realized the photos may need permission by the owner Dino Andrade. The contact info for him is https://www.dinoandrade.com/contact if you want to contact him about whether it's okay to be used for commercial use. And by the way, does the article look alright without the use of photos except for a few to reassessed as a B grade or be in Good article status? Currently, I am still trying to clean up, but I care about quality of the article, and I want to make sure they are reliable and high-quality material. Thanks for reading Aubreeprincess (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1: Oh, and apparently, I must been very impulsive while editing the article, and I realized that the photos that were added did not really justify any of the context really well. Thus, they are deemed unnecessary to be added. All of my other files that are uploaded seemed to be fine. Aubreeprincess (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Actually, a professional told me that only one non-free photo is allowed on any articles on deceased celebrities (in which a non-free image of Bergman was already used on her info box). That's why I was not allowed to upload any files of Mary Kay Bergman that are non-free. By the way, when all these messages happened, I was planning to create and upload a low-resolution short sample (no more than 30 seconds) of Bergman's voice performance as either Liane Cartman or Shelley Marsh during a South Park episode to further demonstrate the voices they sounded like that Bergman gave to Trey Parker and Matt Stone (with the text explaining all this and that) to fix the problem, but I'm so scared about doing it after seeing that the images were going to be deleted. However, it's mainly because it might be invalid not because of the context, but the copyright problems and that it may need permission from South Park Studios or Comedy Central to be used. And not only that, because that it is not a music sample, it might cause a problem. So I decided not to do it right now unless I can.

Now it makes sense now why my other files were fine, but not these ones. I actually did not know that this prevented me from doing so. I thought I was in trouble, but apparently, it was something new that I haven't knew yet. I'm pretty sure that it was written in one of the Wikipedia's policies somewhere, but I actually did not read it for some reason. I usually follow the rules and know what I'm doing, but I guess editing articles on famous people are stricter compared to the articles I usually edit. Anyways, I apologize for all that talking. I was secretly, silently having a mental breakdown, and now I figured I will need a break until then. It might be long, it might be short, but I'll see what I can do. Aubreeprincess (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman, Trey Parker, and Matt Stone, June 23, 1999.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman 1980.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Kay Bergman in the 1960s.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oliver & Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Walt Disney Studios and Peter Schneider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]