User talk:Cb6

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:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • How do you edit a page?
  • How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
  • What about copyrights?
• Community Portal

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]

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]

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 329 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. 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]

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]

What " 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 that 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]

It is ok for us to report the name, as Wikipedia is based in the US and does not need to comply with any gag order - see here where Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales commented in an interview with The Independent. VERTott 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I should have bought a paper this morning. You're quite right. I was concerned more with violating the discreditable disputed material on living persons policy than a UK anonymised injunction and I thought that paragraph was a sneaky back-door attempt to plant some. I was wrong to think so.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cb6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. I'm accessing the web through an iVPN account using openvpn to bypass BT editing of my web traffic. JohnHarris (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You forgot to provide your IP address, so we can't currently find your block. Note though that we wouldn't unblock a VPN address, typically, due to widespread abuse. Yamla (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you Yamla. I'd be grateful for a more detailed explanation: how can a logged-in user be more abusive with a VPN than with a direct connection? In either case the user is self-identified and it's the user account which would be disciplined for abuse, not an IP address. Obviously an editor not logged in should be unable to use a proxy or VPN, I can see a blatantly good reason for that, but I can see none at all for what just happened to me. If your rule isn't "block by IP for edits with no login", why isn't it? The VPN IP address in question is 141.255.164.67, my public IP address is 79.78.171.130, I'm not suggesting you lift an IP block on the VPN IP address for would-be editors who aren't logged in.

You seem to be telling me that as of now I'm never to perform another edit on any Wikipedia article. My ISP, BT, is notorious for editing web traffic and for playing man-in-the-middle to https connections, and a VPN is the only avoidance tool I'm aware of to circumvent the system they have in place. Where I live BT are effectively a monopoly supplier on fibre to the premises.

What have I misunderstood? JohnHarris (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CB6, what you have misunderstood is that I meant, but absolutely did not say, that we normally will leave VPN's blocked from anonymous edits. I was under the impression that we would normally place a block in such cases and mark it 'anon only', allowing signed-in users such as yourself to continue editing. This is not always possible; sometimes the IP addresses are so badly abused that we have to make a stronger block, but it's rare. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. There's no way you could have been expected to know this is what I meant. @Elockid:; as the blocking admin, do you think it's reasonable to change the range block in this case to anon-only? --Yamla (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP range has been abused for years and there were certain groups that were causing a major drain on our resources. There's been some CU issues there too. I don't feel comfortable lifting the range at this time. The only other way to edit while the block is active is give your account IP Block Exemption. Current policy doesn't allow me to add the right but it looks like there is a discussion, so that might change. At this time, I don't think it would be fair to give you the right especially since there are many other users who are editing through BT IPs. Elockid ^{Message me} 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cb6. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cb6. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inland Customs Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBBC. 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) 05:56, 9 January 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]