User talk:Cb6

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Cb6: welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Elizabeth Loftus, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Natalie 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Perth High School. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Excirial 05:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a confusion. Never mind. utcursch | talk 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry over. I'm getting better at cleaning vandalism but that's caught me before. JohnHarris 05:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Earl Okin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Earl Okin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TravellingCari 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cb6! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Earl Okin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ExplainWhat " test edits " did I make. As far as I can see, I didn't vandalize anything, so you are making false claims. Please don't warn me about something that you're going to keep mysterious. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You've been juggling numbers on American Top 40 for Down (Jay Sean song), firstly up from 46 weeks to 47 and then from 47 weeks up to 48. Given the state of your Talk page I'd like to see a respectable reference for either figure. I left the 47 week entry for the time being, not having appropriate information, but your edits are inconsistent and unsupported. "Good Faith" doesn't extend to an edit history like yours. Second edit: Also, one song spent 48 weeks in the chart: "Down" by Jay Sean First edit: Also, one song spent 47 weeks in the chart: "Down" by Jay Sean featuring Lil' Wayne in 2009/2010. Two songs spent 46 weeks in the chart: "You and Me" by Lifehouse in 2005/2006 and "Since U Been Gone" by Kelly Clarkson in 2004/2005. JohnHarris (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The reason why I " juggled " the numbers around is because the song is still on the chart, and each week it is on the chart, I have to add one number. Last week, it stayed on the chart for 47 weeks. This week, it stayed on the chart for another week, adding up to 48 weeks. The information can change as the weeks go by. If the song spends another week on the chart, it should be moved to 49 weeks, because it is not 48 weeks anymore. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] So, the entry says "one song has spent 48 weeks in the chart and has yet to be knocked off: "Down" by Jay Sean featuring Lil' Wayne in 2009/2010." The chart's at http://www.at40.com/top-40/chart/6351 Down first entered at #37 on August 8th 2009 and stayed until February 27, 2010. It then re-entered the chart on May 29th 2010 and it's still there this week. That's one period of 29 weeks and another of 7 weeks, being "knocked off" once. If you check the Talk page for your IP address you'll find it's been used for hoaxing and vandalism several times in the past. Registering and logging in would isolate you from that sort of history and I recommend it. Meanwhile perhaps you'd like to remove Jay Sean's Down from the section we've been discussing, where notable unbroken periods appear. JohnHarris (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The website of old charts are not actually charts from the original AT40 show. The website got revamped, and I can distinctly see that the charts are not the same as the original. You can find American Top 40 countdowns, compare it to the week, and are completely different from the website and the actual radio show. Look at Pulse Music Board's American Top 40 countdowns to see for yourself. Plus, it can't be any clearer in the most recent countdown when Ryan said " Here's the oldest song on the chart at 48 weeks, here's Jay Sean with Down at #40 ". " --76.107.17.32 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] For further proof the charts on the website are wrong, look at the lists of number-one songs on the American Top 40 from 2004-2010, and notice that for some of the songs, the amount of weeks at #1 are different from the charts of the revamped website. Also look at the edit historyy showing that the information was there before the site was revamped. I'm just saying I've listened to every countdown since Down debuted in August of 2009 and it was never knocked off. The American Top 40 is based on the actual audio radio countdown, not on Mainstream Top 40, Mediabase, or the website charts that go back to 2001 that weren't there before. I hope you don't force me to actually find the audio from this week and every week's countdown since Down debuted, because that would be a hassle. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the explanation of your edit. Firstly, I now accept that your changes to American Top 40 are in good faith and intended to reflect accurate information. I pulled the changes initially because the page is semi-protected and, without checking your accuracy, I made a gut call on an incorrect assessment that you were fooling around on the basis of previous vandalizing from the IP address you're currently using. On balance, I think I was wrong to do that. I'd still have pulled the edits because they had no reliable reference for the information but that's not what I actually did. What I'd like you to do is read and consider Wikipedia:No original research. There is, as far as I can see from our discussion here, no hint on any external source that this chart appearance has been continuous for 48 weeks, which is what the edited paragraph relates to. I can well believe Ryan's comment that it's "the oldest song on the chart at 48 weeks" but, having checked the published charts, I'm equally sure that the eleven week gap from March to May is real. Either way what we're both doing at this stage is original research rather than feeding Wikipedia with substantiated fact from a reliable external source. The article's specifically about http://www.at40.com and the content of their website explicitly disagrees with your memory of events. You may, for all I know, be right, but getting at40.com's content corrected seems more reasonable than putting up an alternate reality on wikipedia. Believe me, if Jay Sean's Down stays in that paragraph for now it'll just be edited out a few months when the next contributor takes a close look at it. Have a think where you want to go from here and let me know. My suggestion is that you take the reference to Jay Sean's Down out. You have, despite my misguided first impression, an interest in improving Wikipedia and goodness knows there's plenty else to focus on. JohnHarris (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As for original research, almost none of the chart feats on that article are run on original research anymore. I seriously doubt now according to the website the Here Without You or Scars spent 50 on the chart as far as the website goes. There is no orignial research for the list of number-one songs on the American Top 40 from 2004-2010. So if we removed that one chart feat, we would have to remove everything else that has no links to sources. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]