User talk:Manchild1

Welcome!

Hello, Manchild1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kim Wilde discography, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop vandalising this article by adding invented chart peaks.Nqr9 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kids in America. Again, you are adding false chart peaks to articles.Nqr9 (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Manchild1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi

I am blocked because you sad that I am making up chart position for Kim Wilde

example 1:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

here said that sing Cambodia did not enter FRA charts

but here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cambodia_(song)

said that Cambodia was No. 1 in France

which data is correct? No 1 in France or didnt chart at all in France?

example 2:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

view from the bridge

NL - chart 7. but here

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/View_from_a_Bridge

in NL chart 5.

which data is correct? No 7. or No.5 in NL?

example No. 3

Love Blonde

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

NL -13.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Love_Blonde

here NL - 10.

which data is correct? No 13. or No.10 in NL?

You need more?

Manchild1 (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is your own fault. If you had added reliable sources to show the correct chart position of the singles, then you wouldn't have been warned or blocked. As it is, you were warned and chose to ignore the warnings. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2017 (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.

Manchild1 e-mailed me asking for an unblock restating what he had posted here. I converted his request into the standard {{unblock}} template. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

did you see the hour?

I get warning, and 2 minutes after the warning I get blocked! and that is OK with you?!

Manchild1

There is no set "policy" for how many warnings a user must receive before an administrator can proceed with a block. It looks like you were warned once for your edits made to Kim Wilde discography, and then warned afterwards regarding an unsourced edit you made to Kids in America that same day. Although I'm not sure why the user who warned you jumped straight to a Level 3 warning, it doesn't stop an administrator from applying a block (so long as it's within policy and if the admin feels that the warnings and edits were sufficient). I'll ping Nqr9 to see if he can offer an explanation for his decision to start at a Level 3 warning. I'll also ping Materialscientist to get his explanation as to why an indefinite block was justified. Lets wait and see what they both say in their responses.

Nqr9, Materialscientist: Can you explain the justifications above for this user (and I guess myself as well)? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Manchild1

p.s. You still didnt anwear my question:

example 1:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

here said that sing Cambodia did not enter FRA charts

but here:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cambodia_(song)

said that Cambodia was No. 1 in France

which data is correct? No 1 in France or didnt chart at all in France?

And who will change and correct chart position?

Looking at the Kim Wilde discography article, it looks like the reference provided only cites one song's chart position in France, which is "You Keep Me Hangin' On". The reference does not make any mention about the song "Cambodia" and its popularity in France (see here and here). The Cambodia (song) article states that it peaked #1 on the charts in France, but the table is not supported by any reference at all. I'd say, in a technicality, the Kim Wilde discography is correct in that it has a dash (meaning "no information") with any information regarding that song and France. I'm going to fix the table on the Cambodia song article, as most of the data in that table has no reference. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The fix I made can be seen here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Manchild1

the point is on main page of Kim Wilde is one chart position, a when you click to the song in another. And I just wanna chart position to be the same. Manchild1

I agree that, if data is different between articles and about the exact same thing, then it's a problem and should be fixed. That's a reasonable and understandable concern. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I will check a couple of other artist from the 80s (I listen that music) then I will write you here if there is a diffrent between "front" charts and single charts so you can change.

Manchild1

Kim Wilde Cambodia was No. 1 in France

https://www.wilde-life.com/encyclopedia/c/cambodia

Manchild1

@Oshwah: I gave this user a level 3 warning, because they had entered multiple invented chart positions over 4 different edits. If you look at this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kim_Wilde_discography&type=revision&diff=795379027&oldid=795325981 , for example, they have changed chart peaks for 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' in 4 different columns, not just the French peaks as they are claiming in their request to be unblocked. If you check the references cited for these peaks (you'll need to select the albums tab for the Swiss reference), none of the peaks they've added are listed on the references cited; therefore, I strongly suspect that User Manchild1 is a vandal. If you look through the editing history of this article, it has been subjected to fake chart positions added by multiple users (mainly IP addresses) in recent months. A while ago, I cleaned up the page and removed all chart positions that were not verifiable, as so many of them were wrong. This user's poor grasp of English (which is deliberate, I suspect) is also similar to that used by https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomWatkins1970 , a user I have had several recent run-ins over vandalism on Bros articles, adding unverified and exaggeraged sales claims with multiple sock puppet accounts. I wouldn't be surprised if the same person is behind the Manchild1 account. I do not believe that this user's edits have been made in good faith, and would support keeping them blocked.Nqr9 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Also, Manchild1 changed a sourced and valid US chart peak on the Kids in America page here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kids_in_America&type=revision&diff=795321888&oldid=790355862 , to an unsourced/invented peak, with no explanation for their change. This looks like confirmation that they are a vandal to me.Nqr9 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Manchild1's request to be unblocked above, they've even got the title of one of Kim's bigger hits, 'View from a Bridge' wrong (they wrote "view from the bridge"). I think this user is clearly trying it on.Nqr9 (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add, requesting to be unblocked so persistently is also a characteristic shared with TomWatkins1970 (the user with multiple sock puppet accounts), along with using (unsourced) information on another wikipedia page. This user, Manchild1, seems to know a lot about using wikipedia despite only having made 5 edits on 2 pages with a new account. Looks rather suspicious to me.Nqr9 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Poor english - I am from Croatia and the english is not my mother language 2. Kim personly said here https://www.wilde-life.com/sites/default/files/kimwildefanclub_vol01_no6.pdf Kids in America no. 23 in USA 3. If a knew how to put source for the chart position I will put 4. The Singles Collection the same source as for Kids in America (fan club) 5. they?! there is only me. Check te IP. I dont care about Bros because I dont anything about Bros. 6. sock puppet accounts - thank you if you think I have that knoweldge about computers but I dont, since I only knew how to send e mail, get on internet and how play games. Manchild1

Why did you change peaks from other countries, like the Dutch, Swedish and Swiss albums chart peaks for 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' to made-up peaks if you are not a vandal? The peaks you changed them to were incorrect and are not listed on the citations used for peaks in these countries. It does not matter what "Kim personally said"; that is not a reliable source for a chart peak, especially when a Billboard site (already cited on the page) lists the peak as being #25... and I doubt Kim actually "said" that herself. A "fan club" is not a source, and it is not even a specific source you have given. I believe you are a vandal, and probably the same person who is behind the TomWatkins1970 account (who has claimed 'sources' that don't exist, for fake chart peaks, such as 'MTV' or 'Smash Hits'), based on your editing behaviour. Please find something more constructive to do with your time.Nqr9 (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where is official rules that fan club is not a OK source? You made a mistake and now you cant say you are sory for blocking me, but you acuse me without any evidence that I have more then this account. You need to be blocked for such lies.

https://www.wilde-life.com/sites/default/files/kimwildefanclub_vol01_no6.pdf

page 4; Kids in America; USA No. 23

Manchild1

Other editors reading this garble, I have just checked the supposd pdf source linked above that this user claims lists a peak of #23 for "Kids in America" in the US (which would be wrong anyway; the Billboard site itself has #25), and there is no mention of any chart info in that pdf at all. Surprise, surprise... not. This user is clearly a vandal, and their posting rights should not be re-instated.Nqr9 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the requests to have me blocked have started - "You need to be blocked for such lies." Check the TomWatkins1970 sock pupppet investigations page I linked earlier; the same tactic is being used here.Nqr9 (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, there is nothing listed on page 4 about "Kids in America". This person is a troll.Nqr9 (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wilde-life.com/sites/default/files/kimwildefanclub_vol01_no6.pdf

page 4

You didnt open the link that I gave you

Manchild1

https://www.wilde-life.com/sites/default/files/kimwildefanclub_vol01_no6.pdf

page 4

record news - last sentence

Manchild1

Look at this - http://www.billboard.com/artist/305890/Kim+Wilde/chart?f=379 . Billboard publish the chart. A fan club newsletter is not a reliable source for chart information when more-reliable sources (i.e. from the chart publisher) exist. Now, would you care to explain why you changed the Dutch, Swedish and Swiss albums chart peaks for 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' to invented peaks? You also changed some other peaks to made-up chart positions too.Nqr9 (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

example 2:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

view from the bridge

NL - chart 7. but here

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/View_from_a_Bridge

in NL chart 5.

which data is correct? No 7. or No.5 in NL?

example No. 3

Love Blonde

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

NL -13.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Love_Blonde

here NL - 10.

which data is correct? No 13. or No.10 in NL?

You need more?

Singels Collection - also fan club newsletter

So you did see the last sentence. A minutes ago you said there is no sentece about Kids in America.

Where is the rule - fan club newsletter is not a source?

Manchild1

You changed the Finnish peak for ‘The Singles Collection 1981-1993’ from 14 to 5. You changed the Dutch peak for this album from 5 to 6, the Swedish peak from 11 to 19, and the Swiss peak from 18 to 20. Care to explain those changes, when the sources cited support the original peaks listed. This is more evidence of your vandalism. I see you've quoted a slab of wikipedia pages above, which cannot be used as references themselves; but I'm sure you know that. I'm not going to waste any more time conversing with you; you are a vandal.Nqr9 (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

singels collection charts - from club newsletter. You need proof also?

Where is the rule - fan club newsletter is not a source?

wait, so you say that wikipedia charts position is not references?! what is the point then that wikipedia have those data?

Manchild1 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

any news?

Manchild1 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manchild1: To prove that your claim is genuine, that you took the other peaks I mentioned above for 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' from "fanclub" newsletters, would you care to link those newsletters here, so we can see that they actually state the chart positions you changed them to (even though they are wrong)? If the newsletters are not online, you can take a scan or photo of the page/s you refer to in them, and upload them to an image-hosting site such as imgur.com .Nqr9 (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I dont care. Do what you want, fuck wikipedia. GoodbyeManchild1 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manchild1: But you were able to provide a fanclub newsletter for the "Kids in America" peak. If you really made a genuine mistake, and are not a vandal, you won't mind showing us where you took those peaks from.Nqr9 (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of Kim Wilde. I have every album that she every recorded. For singles collection? also from fan club newsletter. But I dont care anymore. Do what you want with those charts position. Manchild1 (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where is here http://finnishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Kim+Wilde&titel=The+Singles+Collection+1981+%2D+1993&cat=a 14. place for singles collection in Finnland?! there is no finnish position for that album Manchild1 (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit of yours https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kim_Wilde_discography&type=revision&diff=795379027&oldid=795325981 , you changed the Finnish peak of 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' from 14 to 5, the Dutch peak from #5 to #6, the Swedish peak from #11 to #19, and the Swiss peak from #18 to #20. But the link you have pasted above supports all of the original peaks that were listed (other than the Finnish peak, which is taken from a book reference, as finnishcharts.com does not have archives of the Finnish charts dating back that far). Your claim now that you used this site as a reference, which doesn't even support the changes you made and instead supports the original peaks, is a change in your earlier story that you took the peaks from a fan club newsletter. As I suspected all along, you are a vandal, and this proves it. I'm done with this now.Nqr9 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care what you think since I dont care anymore about wikipedia. Wikipedia sucks

I didnt clame nothing I said that there is no proof that she was 14. in FIN in 1993 with that album. Manchild1 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on that. I have removed the peak now. However, you still haven't explained where you sourced the other changes you made in that edit, and that is only one edit you made - there were 3 others where you changed sourced peaks with no explanation. If you can't show us the fan club newsletters you supposedly took this chart information from, which is incorrect anyway, the only conclusion is that your edits were vandalism.Nqr9 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

view from the bridge

NL - chart 7. but here

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/View_from_a_Bridge

in NL chart 5. - fan club

which data is correct? No 7. or No.5 in NL?

example No. 3

Love Blonde

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography

NL -13.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Love_Blonde

here NL - 10. - fan club

which data is correct? No 13. or No.10 in NL?

all charts in a songs are take from kim wilds fan page!! Since the school is started to work (teacher of biology/chemistry in high school) I dont have time now the read again all the fan club pages just to make your job easier. But I will never again use wiki data for anything since the admins of wiki was unfair. They didnt wanna know what is the problem with charts position. So why will I spend my free time to correct data that originaly wasnt even mine. In the future I will log in a diffrent name and maybe then will admin have time to sit with me and checked everything that I did, and not blocked me after 24h. (you notice that english is not my mother language). Goodbye and sory. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. Manchild1 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I notice that Kids in America are in USA still 25. not 23 on chart? why? I gave you proof in fan club newsletter. Manchild1 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why not u understand fan club are not relibale sources for wikipedia. and kids on america peak is correct 25. i told yuo this many time before in replys above. oh you biolgy/chematsry teacher now. i thought u was music historian for fourty years when you wear using tomwatkins1970 accounts. see i can pretnd be not nativ english speakers too.Nqr9 (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 days ago you wanna know where I can find that KIA was 23. and not 25. you are pure idiot. Goodbye Manchild1 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i show you bilboard refrence for usa peak severeal day ago but u no look cause you arent a real editor. i think your just troling us here so im gonna say by to you now. thre is no need to get personal.Nqr9 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. you accuse me that I have more then 1 account with no evidence. 2. you fuck everyone here with chart position. when I gave you the source then you tell that this is not official. Make up your mind 3. I dont care what you think 4. this is my official youtube channal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_GH6M7cUq4 please watch this music video 5. Yes it is personal Manchild1 (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fan club newsletter is not a reliable source in this instance because the chart peak listed there is not correct. The Billboard site I have linked here, and on the 'Kids in America' page itself, is official. Billboard published the US charts. Did you even look at the references cited on the Kim Wilde discography page before changing those chart positions? The finnishcharts.com link you pasted here earlier shows that the chart positions that were originally listed on the page, before your edits, were correct. Now you claim the fan club says something different. But it is not a reliable source. The chart sites linked on the discography page are. If you are a teacher, then surely you know it pays to check sources. Would you teach something to your students that you read in a chemistry club newsletter without checking more-reliable sources such as journals or books?Nqr9 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, you are right. I was thinking that fan club have "more official" charts position. You can tell me these the first time and not blocked me. Manchild1 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you. I reported your account to an administrator, based on your editing history. You changed chart positions that were accurate to inaccurate chart positions, and did not provide an explanation or a source for your changes. It was not just this edit I mentioned, but you did 4 separate edits on the Kim Wilde discography page, and one on the Kids in America page. For example, you added a German peak of #11 for 'Who Do You Think You Are?', which is not correct. It looked to me as though you were a vandal, for these reasons, and still does - because you will not show the fan club newsletters you allegedly took these chart peaks from, other than the 'Kids in America' one you have already provided. If you are determined to edit wikipedia, and you are not a vandal, maybe you can create another account. But be warned, if you make changes to any pages on my watchlist that are not supported by references, or if you remove sourced information and replace it with unsourced information, I will report your account again.Nqr9 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok.

but you need the show me how and where I can put the source. Not now maybe in a week since I have right now in a school lot of work. Maybe this weekend, then I will cotact you as soon as I creat new account. is that ok? Manchild1 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat again, the chart position for "Kids in America" in the US is #25, not #23, as the fan club newsletter you posted says. If the fan club newsletters say that those 'The Singles Collection 1981-1993' peaks are different, they are also wrong. None of the changes you made on the Kim Wilde discography or Kids in America pages are correct.Nqr9 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okManchild1 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I accused you of vandalism - because the changes you made were not accurate, and you did not provide a source. Also, your writing style is very similar to a vandal who has used many accounts and adds similar changes to articles (inaccurate chart and sales statistics, with no references provided).Nqr9 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]