User talk:Stickdaze3

January 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Aspinall's, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was apparently because of the Daily Mail reference, which I now asked you about on your talk page.Stickdaze3 (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did indicate that in my edit summary when I removed it: . But yes, I should not have left the section unsourced; I have now added a "citation needed" tag. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sorry about reverting your edit (your removal of the source), which you then re-reverted, but I'm not sure if your addition of a "citation needed" tag instead is very serious.Stickdaze3 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to find a source yourself. I usually try to replace the deprecated sources I remove but in this instance, I don't have the motivation so the tag will have to do for now. I see you just posted again on my Talk page. Could we please keep the conversation in one place, here? Robby.is.on (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)