User talk:Big universe

Section 1[edit]

Testing format

Section 2[edit]

Next section

Section 3[edit]

If I sign this with 4 tildes, would I be talking to myself? ;) - Big universe (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

imagetest[edit]

No problem, happy to help. Let me know if you have any questions. And welcome to Wikipedia! Trivialist (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot! :) ~ Big universe (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMBERSIGN[edit]

Hi, I see you've been changing instances of text like "number nine" to read "#9". This is not correct to do per MOS:NUMBERSIGN and MOS:NUMERAL. Thanks. Ss 112 14:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Big universe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account name[edit]

Did you put Big Universe because you didn't know what to say or does it have a meaning behind it? It really is a Big Universe. :D ;D DaisyCarpenter7 (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My note: forgot to use piping to redirect link when I changed "Amazon.com" in article text to "Amazon" (didn't realize resulting link might go to a disambiguation page) ~ Big universe (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edit summaries[edit]

Hey there. Can I ask what's going on here? — fox 01:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above question: who are you speaking to in your edit summaries here? Nobody else the user Anomie once edited the page. Ss112 08:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big universe, why do you write edit summaries like you're writing a message on Facebook? There is no need for the smiley faces and "xx" like you're signing off with two kisses. An edit summary is not a cute sign-off, it's merely supposed to be a short description of what you did. Besides that, what does "(NS)" stand for? Also, please stop changing list styles to suit your personal preference. Not only is this pointless per WP:HLIST (they are basically the same), you are inconsistently implementing them, and it appears to be quite careless, per your most recent edit to Could I Have This Kiss Forever where you changed the list to a horizontal list and forgot about a format beneath. Ss112 22:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Big U and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the project. There have been some concerns raised that your account may be being used by more than one person and or that it is being used as form of messaging board. At times you seem to be addressing others in some of your edits and it is not clear who. And then there is this page which I am having a hard time understanding. Could you explain this please? We have guidelines that preclude the use of Wikipedia for anything not connected to the Encyclopedia and accounts are strictly limited to one person. To be clear you are not in any trouble right now but I am asking these questions formally in my capacity as an administrator. Your prompt reply is much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ad Orientem, and thanks for the welcome! I was going to leave a message on your talk page, where Ss112 first brought this issue up a little while ago. But when I got there, wasn't sure if I should start a new heading, or insert it into that same conversation, and didn't want to breach etiquette. Also, didn't know if you would notice it in time. So I will leave it here, instead. (Used a tag that I found other people in that thread using that I think is used to "call" people, so hope it works--my apologies if I goofed something up, though.)

To address your questions:

1) I'm the only one using this account, and there should only be one person (me) signing in. (I was, however, concerned that someone else might be trying to compromise my account, as I've experienced some difficulties with this account, as well as others.)

2) Edit summaries: I've seen some pretty odd stuff in edit summaries before, and didn't know there was a policy about them. My 'odd' summaries weren't that frequent, though they did always describe the edits I made; but I pretty much stopped once it was brought up.

3) The odd subpage: other people seem to have a lot of personal stuff on their user page and subpages, so it never occurred to me that it would be a problem.

I am very sorry if my actions have been disruptive; please let me know how you wish to proceed.

Sincerely, Big universe (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That seems fair enough. If you are concerned about your account being compromised I suggest you beef up your password and make sure you sign out when done editing if anyone else might have access to your computer. Some personal touches on your primary user page are generally tolerated. But we don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a social media platform or some kind of online diary or for posting random thoughts etc. I am going to suggest that you blank that page and tag it for deletion per WP:G7. I will post a welcome template below since you don't seem to have gotten one. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to drop me a line. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Big universe, why is it you only reply when you think you're in trouble off an administrator? As Ad Orientem said, entire subpages in your user space not directly related to working on content for the encyclopedia should not be made. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not here to serve as your way to communicate with others about topics that aren't about improving the encyclopedia, or as a web host for your diary entries. As recently as two days ago, you were also still leaving odd edit summaries on the article for an image. Who are you speaking to? Because to anybody else, you would appear to be speaking to yourself. Ss112 01:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would appreciate some explanation for that. It does look like you are trying to communicate with someone via edit summaries. Frankly I am having a hard time seeing any other explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick add... it's getting late where I am. I will check back tomorrow on this. If you want to save anything from that subpage I will give you the overnight as a grace period, but it really has to go. Please do not use edit summaries for anything other than concise explanations for whatever edits you are making. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these: User:Big universe/mountains, User:Big universe/respect, User:Big universe/whiskey tango foxtrot, User:Big universe/Q. It's quite clear you're using your account in part to send messages to people outside of Wikipedia: Ss112 02:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I deleted the "conversational" dummy edits on File:Whiskey tango foxtrot.jpg, File:Sorry sadface.jpg, File:Love never fails.jpg, and File:Solid red heart love.jpg. Please don't make any more. Anomie ⚔ 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomie, thanks for doing that; and no, I won't make anymore. Big universe (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>>Hi, Ad Orientem, thank you for your kind reply, as well as for the advice and information you've provided.

As per your suggestion/request:

1) I have blanked the page (and removed anything else on other pages that seemed too personal, or that basically shouldn't be there, per this discussion).

2) I also added the DB:G7 tag to the page, and apparently I did it correctly since there is now a box with text in it: "This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion...".

3) My edit summaries will only contain information relevant to the edits I make.

Hopefully I covered everything, but please let me know if there's anything I missed, or that I did incorrectly and need to do over.

Thanks a lot for your time and your help, and I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Sincerely, Big universe (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Big universe, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Speedy deletion notices[edit]

Hi Ad Orientem, I had blanked these pages, and then later realized I could probably have just put tags on them myself. But it was very late and I had already logged out, so was going to do it later today. Thank you for doing that, and I'm sorry you had to do it instead. Also, the pages are now deleted, so I removed the nomination notices from this page since they sort of take up a lot of space. I hope that's okay; the only info I could find about this is that I'm not supposed to remove the deletion tags (which I didn't)--but there was nothing about removing the notices. In any case, for reference, the notices are still in the page history here. Thanks a lot for your help, and again, sorry about this. Big universe (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Big universe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries - unusual code[edit]

Hi, the majority of your edits since mid-November 2017 (something like 90% of them) have an edit summary that begins with (NS) - what does that mean? I can't find it in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. What does it mean, exactly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, it will help a lot, thanks so much! :) Big universe (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello Big universe. Thanks for asking for rollback, which of course I'm considering carefully. I thought I'd offer some comments and get your feedback before doing anything further. You offered two edits as motivation. In reverse order, the second edit was indeed blatant vandalism of a type which is commonly rolled back. The edits were consecutive and made by the same IP address, so rollback would have been appropriate. I have a suggestion here, which is something I think is a useful prerequisite for rollback, and that is 'manual reverting', as described at Help:Reverting. Both rollback and 'undo' can occasionally result in a muddle which it's useful to know how to get out of. Knowing how to detect and revert to the 'last good version' is a useful, or perhaps fundamental, skill to have. I'd like to see that you understand how to do this.

I'm not so sure about the first example edits you provided. I'm not well versed in how we present singles charts, but this doesn't strike me as obvious vandalism. The user claimed to be correcting the format, were applying changes consistent with the rest of the table, and changed a 'chartid' to something which was not obviously wrong. You cited no edit summary as one reason for the revert, which is not really a valid reason for reverting. Instead of using rollback here, an edit summary citing legitimate complaints would have been the proper course of action. Adding a section of the talk page also works, but it's important to get some dialogue going instead of using the bland rollback summary.

Basically, though I think it's possible that you could use rollback properly, I think you'd benefit from practising manual reversions (without using the 'undo' link), and you might even benefit from getting used to WP:TWINKLE which offers a form of rollback. Honestly I don't think you'd really benefit from the rollback tool. However, based on what I've said, if you think you'd still want the rollback tool you're welcome to make the case. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi zzuuzz, thanks for your reply--still working on my reply, will hopefully have a response by sometime on Monday at the latest. Thanks! Big universe (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

OK, here's the TL;DR version: I enabled TWINKLE and that pretty much takes care of things. Thanks for that suggestion, had no idea rollback was in there. Clarifications and/or responses to what you wrote are below, if you have the time. Sorry this is so long, but it's fairly thorough (your post actually covered quite a few issues). It's also still barely Monday here on the East Coast (EST), so I'm going to post this now. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, you may want to check out P2:S2:2 ("responses for Paragraph 2"), in the "Note": I may have found an alternate IP account for the IP user I reverted here. In any case, I know you're very busy, so thanks a lot for your help and for taking the time to respond--I really do appreciate it! :) Big universe (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

responses for Paragraph 1 (P1)

Paragraph 1:

P1:S1 - manual reverting/last good version

"I have a suggestion here, which is something I think is a useful prerequisite for rollback, and that is 'manual reverting', as described at Help:Reverting."

1) Thanks for the link to "manual reverting", didn't know you could do that. I once accidentally hit "edit" while browsing an old revision, and the warning that appeared was so dire that it seemed unwise to ever attempt it; very glad to have the info on how to use it.

2) One caution with this method, though, appears to be that by reverting all edits made from that point on, one could unintentionally undo additional legitimate edits made while one is in the process of reverting to the "last good version". Unless there's a mechanism that prevents this, I'm assuming those edits would need to be manually restored. Rollback, on the other hand, would only roll back edits made by one user (up until that point), so if another edit is made before the rollback action is completed, an error message is returned and the rollback action is blocked. So it would probably be best if I tried this out on an article that doesn't see much editing activity.

P1:S2 - "how to do this" where "this" = ?

"Both rollback and 'undo' can occasionally result in a muddle which it's useful to know how to get out of. Knowing how to detect and revert to the 'last good version' is a useful, or perhaps fundamental, skill to have. I'd like to see that you understand how to do this."

1) Sorry, but I'm not really understanding you. If the question is about whether I can recognize good edits in a string of problematic edits, I believe I can. Most of the time it's easy to identify good faith edits, and for those I add "reverted good faith edit(s)" to the edit summary: 1, 2, 3. The sequential edits I've reverted so far haven't really had any good edits mixed in (for example, this series of 3 reverts: 1-2-3)). But I've done partial reverts of single edits when I can salvage some of the edit: 1, 2.

2) If you're asking if I can technically handle the automated methods of reverting, i.e. TWINKLE rollback or the manual revert, both are fine. Before using automation, though, I usually make sure I can perform the action without it. For example, I initially did reverts by adding/deleting via the text editor before finally using the "undo" link (which made things so much easier). I've been manually reverting sequential edits for awhile, so I'm comfortable with using an automated process.

3) ("...rollback...muddle...useful to know how to get out of") In the somewhat unlikely case that you're asking how I would deal with problems arising from rollback/undo actions, ideally one would "undo the undo". Worst case scenario, one would have to restore the good material manually, by text editor. For example, as mentioned in P1:S1:2 above, the manual revert method to restore to "last good version" could potentially undo very recent additional good edits, which would have to be restored via "undo" (if available) or via text editor.

responses for Paragraph 2 (P2)

Paragraph 2:

"I'm not so sure about the first example edits you provided. I'm not well versed in how we present singles charts, but this doesn't strike me as obvious vandalism. The user claimed to be correcting the format, were applying changes consistent with the rest of the table, and changed a 'chartid' to something which was not obviously wrong."

P2:S1 - IP inserting music chart templates with the wrong song title

"The user claimed to be correcting the format, were applying changes consistent with the rest of the table"

1) There are two main chart formats being used: a longer, full-reference format and the shorter template macro "singlechart" format. In the charts section (weekly, year-end, decade-end) for this particular article, the use of either chart is about 50/50. The IP claimed they were "correcting" the charts, but neither format is correct or incorrect, and you'll see both styles even in the charts of current song articles.

2) However my main concern was that, in the IP's first edit, two out of the three chart templates inserted were for the wrong song (the last two entries, for the song "The First Night"; the correct song/article title is "Angel of Mine"--both songs are from the same album by the same artist, Monica). It may not appear to be obvious vandalism, but it looked to me like the "change of format" was being used to disguise the subtle addition of incorrect info. Because to a casual observer, these look like legitimate edits. Please see next section.

P2:S2 - vandalism? chart macro templates, incorrect song titles, chart bot & possible alternate IP account

"...changed a 'chartid' to something which was not obviously wrong."

1) In their first edit (of 3), the IP user added three charts. The template for their first "corrected" chart entry (Canada Adult Contemporary), set the parameter |song ="Angel of Mine", which is the correct song; however, the templates for chart entries 2 (Canada Dance) and 3 (Canada Top Singles) set the parameter |song="The First Night", which is incorrect. All chart parameters other than song title were correct.

2) Indications that the edits were likely not in good faith:

+ Of the three entries submitted in the same edit (IP Edit #1), one actually had the correct title, while the other two didn't. So it's not likely the IP user was confused regarding which song they were adding info about, which might have been the case if ALL the entries they added had been for the wrong song. Their very short edit history also indicates that they've never added charts to the song "The First Night", at least not using this IP address (see Note, next).

Note: I just checked the edit history for the song "The First Night" and found this edit to one of the same charts with the wrong title (Dance chart) made on 2-24-19 by an IP editor with a similar IP address as the IP being discussed in this comment. Compare the two IP addresses side-by-side here; the first 4 blocks are the same, the last 4 blocks are different. It may be a coincidence, but these two accounts may be linked; if so, it may be why they didn't come to the talk page. Or it could still be vandalism; if it's the same editor, everything but the song title was updated and correct.

+ Using the correct song title to search both the Canadian RPM Dance and Top Singles charts (the erroneous charts added), easily pulled up the correct charts - no need for the title change.

+ In their third edit (of 3), the IP user did see and correct one error in Edit #1 where the link led to an empty page. In contrast, they never corrected the incorrect song titles in either of the two incorrect chart templates that they also added in Edit #1. So they had looked at their first edit again, and saw the empty chart; but either they still somehow didn't notice incorrect titles in the other two charts, or they added them intentionally.

+ They reverted my first two reverts (of IP's edits #3 and #2), almost immediately after they appeared, and without any edit summaries to defend why the info should be kept (two of their three original edits also didn't have edit summaries). This also prevented me from reverting IP Edit #1 which had the incorrect info. I reverted their reverts and asked them to discuss further on the talk page.

+ The IP user never came to the article's talk page, which by itself isn't necessarily an indicator of bad faith. But if they felt strongly enough to revert my reverts, and they were good faith edits and not vandalism, I'd think they would have had some explanation (unless they didn't want to reveal an alternate IP address, as mentioned above).

3) Conclusion:

Worst case, it could be very subtle vandalism. The template documentation indicates that the singlechart template is being implemented in part to allow a bot to eventually be used to revert vandalism. I don't know the specifics of the bot's operation, but if the title or other parameter(s) is/are incorrect for some entries, it's reasonable to expect that the outcome might not be good. On the other hand, the IP user may have simply tried to insert the wrong song names to see if anyone noticed; or maybe the two IP addresses I discussed above are linked, and they accidentally forgot to correct the template they had used with a different IP address this past February. In any case, it's still incorrect info. However, when I get the chance, I did want to re-check and correct the entries, and add them back if they're ok.

P2:S3 - edit summaries

"You cited no edit summary as one reason for the revert, which is not really a valid reason for reverting. Instead of using rollback here, an edit summary citing legitimate complaints would have been the proper course of action."

1) Just to explain, I generally write "no edit summary", not as a reason for reverting per se, but to note that the user hasn't given a reason for their change. If the change appears either unnecessary or unconstructive, there is no compelling reason to keep it, in the absence of the author's rationale. (Usually I don't bother with changes that seem unnecessary as long as they aren't problematic, or associated with a problematic edit.) But if I do note "no edit summary" on a revert, it is normally followed by the actual reason(s) for the revert: 1, 2, 3.

2) In this case, the summary for the reversion of IP's 1st edit (i.e. containing incorrect chart entries) contained the main rationale for all 3 reverts: unnecessary changes; incorrect info added; 2 piggyback edits reverted (2nd edit added 2 more charts; 3rd was correction to 1st edit). This last reversion, of IP's 1st/main edit, shows up on top of the other two in the article's revision history and explains the two reverts below it. Those two edits, i.e. #2 and 3, are what I call "piggyback" edits which follow the first, "main" edit: for good faith edits, they're usually minor edits made to the first/main edit (which will itself be reverted/deleted); for not-so-good faith edits, they are minor edits that follow the main edit which appear to be intended to distract or mislead. Both the reverts in this example, which you noted mentioned "no edit summary", were also marked "piggyback edit" (i.e. of Edit #1 of 3). Here's an example of piggyback edits rolled back by another user: the first/main edit contains unsourced info, and two edits that follow it are piggyback edits.

P2:S4 - rollback summaries

"Adding a section of the talk page also works, but it's important to get some dialogue going instead of using the bland rollback summary."

1) I actually use a custom template that I created instead of the autogenerated one, adding links to changes made and (usually) to applicable WP policies. My edit summaries for reverts are often pretty long; the diffs I've provided so far should give a good idea as to the level of length and detail. I've used the edit summary to invite reverted users to discuss on the talk page thread I've opened, as I did on this (music chart) edit as well as here.

2) Also, on my rollback request on your talk page, I mentioned that I had found a way to add an edit summary (at least according to the documentation) to any rollbacks made using the rollback tool (via the &summary=[edit summary text] string appended to the rollback URL). So even if I used the rollback tool, I would always add an ES because I think they're essential, especially for reverts.

responses for Paragraph 3 (P3)

Paragraph 3:

P3:S1 - manual reversions/undo

"I think you'd benefit from practising manual reversions (without using the 'undo' link)"

I agree, and will try the (automated) manual reversion method now that I know about it; TWINKLE also appears to have this feature (i.e. "restore this version" link above diffs) in addition to rollback.

P3:S2 - TWINKLE, TWINKLE, little rollback

"...you might even benefit from getting used to WP:TWINKLE which offers a form of rollback"

Have enabled TWINKLE and the rollback feature is pretty much what I was looking for. It has the option to add an edit summary, which is good. It also doesn't auto mark reverts as "minor", which is also good. It does revert intervening bot edits, so will need to watch out for that. As far as I can tell, the main difference between rollback and TWINKLE rollback is that the former is much faster, likely optimal for very experienced users who are reverting a lot of vandalism (i.e. not me, yet); whereas the TWINKLE version has features that slow things down but keep most of the conventional user interface. Right now, the TWINKLE version is most suited to my needs. So you were completely right, zzuuzz, thanks for the info!

If you've read this far, I hope this addresses your concerns. Even though I ultimately opted for TWINKLE (which is good to become familiar with anyway), you went to the trouble of writing a response so I wrote a response to your response, and I figured I might as well post it.

Thanks again! Big universe (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Oh no! I knew this was long but didn't realize it was THIS long. My apologies to anyone who tries to read this. Big universe (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Just a couple of points in reply. "this" (P1:S2) relates to finding the last good version, which seems to be all in order. For the IP address(es), see WP:IPHOPPER. If the first 4 parts of the address are the same, you can normally assume that it's the same user, and usually changing address through no fault of their own. Glad it's all sorted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much for your help, zzuuzz! Big universe (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

News and notes: An Action Packed April

In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

Technology report: A new special page, and other news

Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

From the archives: Portals revisited

Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

From the editors: Picture that

News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

Technology report: Lots of Bots

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

Essay: Paid editing

From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

In the media: The disinformation age

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

Technology report: Actors and Bots

Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

In the media: Politics starts getting rough

Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Manhattan blackout of July 2019[edit]

On 16 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manhattan blackout of July 2019, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Manhattan blackout of July 2019 occurred exactly 42 years after the New York City blackout of 1977? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan blackout of July 2019. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Manhattan blackout of July 2019), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]

From the editors: Where do we go from here?

Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019[edit]

In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

Community view: Observations from the mainland

Arbitration report: October actions

Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019[edit]

From the editor: Put on your birthday best

News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

In the media: You say you want a revolution

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

Gallery: Winter and holidays

Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

Essay: Adminitis

From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019[edit]

From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

Technology report: User scripts and more

Gallery: Holiday wishes

Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020[edit]

From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]

From the editor: The ball is in your court

News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

Gallery: Feel the love

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Orb cover art lovin you cropped.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Orb cover art lovin you cropped.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) 17:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]