User talk:RetiredUser30000

July 2021
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pharrell Williams discography, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your bold edits at Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon
Please direct your efforts at discussing your changes at the article's talk page rather than reinstating them (WP:BRD). Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop changing my edits please as I am adding the correct information. Thanks. Chiade85 (User talk:Chiade85) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
 * Correct or not is not the question. You may not know yet, but when a bold edit is reverted, don't revert the revert!! Almost never, see WP:BRD. In such a case, go to the article talk, and explain why you think it should be included, and if you find more support than opposition, it will be included. For what you added, a long list of names in the introduction, you would not get my support, because it should be a summary of the most important, not names without context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't know the rules of Wikipedia or how certain things work so I apologise to you. I just made an account as I saw errors or missing content from certain pages of people I am a fan of so that's why I add things like this. But I don't appreciate Peanuts trying to report me with false information because he is salty I am adding correct content. Thank you to you for telling me this particular rule. I also went to the talk page as you suggested to see if people agree with my changes. User: Chiade85 (User talk: Chiade85) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
 * Thank you for understanding. It must be overwhelming to meet so many dos and don't as a large project naturally has. We oldies have a tendency to believe that everybody knows these rules, and whoever doesn't follow is "disruptive". (When I was young, disruptive meant something innovative, so positive. Well, here, that's not so.) - Thank you also for going to the talk page. The article was deserted by its main contributor, and we others are super cautious to not let it slip in quality, do you understand? If for quite a while you rather observe what's going on, and read articles to see how they are composed, you'll have a happier time, - promised. - Your ping didn't get to me, - a ping needs a fresh signature, DYK? (... short for "did you know?") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks as if nobody ever welcomed you? Awful. Here you go:

Welcome!
Hi Chiade85! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining, I just wanted to try and help out with pages and I'm already the victim of a toxic editor who is trying to report me with random unbannable info and digging up edits simply because he doesn't like what I am adding and doesn't know I'm new to this. But thank you for clarifying and I appreciate you not wanting a dip in quality as all I am trying to do it help and provide accurate information to the pages. Chiade85 (talk)
 * I don't know if you will listen to me: you are no victim, but someone with good intentions who runs into problems. Repeating: listen more! Who told you words like "toxic" and "bannable"? Better forget them. AGF stands for "assume good faith", and if you expect it, please also give it to others. If I had been the first to see your addition, I would have been the one to revert. Now please let's discuss at the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't question words I use. But I am no longer going to discuss on the article. I am going to retire the account. Chiade85 ( hiade85) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
 * I said that I don't know if you will listen to me. I need to talk about words because I'm German and English is difficult for me, - I often need to question words. I said (before seeing this) on the article talk page that my first article (the complete article!) was deleted, and I could have left Wikipedia in frustration, - instead I called for help, and found it. Your choice. You could stay and learn and contribute good things. If you believe you don't need to learn (at least a bit of which information goes where and with which reference, and that we collaborate and discuss, not revert revert revert), Wikipedia will not miss much. Take care, and we are here to help with the first steps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Your recent editing history at Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't matter what "correct information" you added in articles, what you doing is disruptive. I suggest you follow the guidelines just like everybody else here (WP:MOS). And don't tell me to change your edits, I been here a lot longer than you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you stop being so triggered trying to report me and using information which isn't a bannable offence saying I have another account or whatever it was, that was just me when I was logged out accidentally. User:Chiade85 (talk) 19:48 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)

Mistake?
Hello Chiade85. I hope that this edit of yours was a mistake. You removed a talk thread on someone else's user talk where you were the subject of the complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello yeah sorry, that was a mistake. I just don't understand why someone is complaining when they are also an issue but my apologies for this mistake. Chiade85 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)