Hello, I'm Jaellee. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lionel Messi, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Reaganomics88,

Regarding the references at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, you'll see that some bullet points have a <ref name=SomeName/> tag. This means that that particular reference is defined somewhere else in the article, alongside with a name/label, and details are included there. This allows editors to fill in reference details just once, and cite them in different parts of the article by just using a tag. This saves bandwidth for the reader too.

See WP:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. If you have any doubts about it just let me know.

Cheers and welcome! --Langus ^TxT 21:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions are (and should be) an important part of that article. Huritisho (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you refrained from baiting Againstdisinformation. It will just provoke another round of needless controversy. GAB^Hello! 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just reinforcing GAB's advice. We've all been tempted and riled by certain editors (and probably will succumb to temptation over and over again), but I was just reminded of WP:DFTT by another editor over this issue a few days ago. All we're accomplishing is giving the user the attention he craves. It's best not to engage and, when encountering a contentious edit to article content, simply revert it invoking the correct policies in your edit summary. The less direct contact, the better. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna, I am craving absolutely no attention. I would certainly do quite fine without yours. You have been following me everywhere for quite a long time now. In a way it's touching but, please, try to forget me, there are millions of other wikipedians out there. Good bye.Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked, so please don't gravedance. Some admin might take it the wrong way. GAB^Hello! 20:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have antagonised me for so long but I take your point. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the removal was inappropriate. I probably shouldn't have done that. GAB^Hello! 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Strike comment. GAB^Hello! 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't have... but, as you well know, I recently breached WP:TPNO inadvertently. It can get a little difficult to differentiate between appropriate removals and inappropriate removals. Still, I think that Reaganomics88 has made the wrong decision in restoring that badly thought out comment you'd removed in good faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a bit over-cautious with this sort of thing, so my mistake, I guess. That ANI has made me a lot more wary, though. GAB^Hello! 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a serious wake-up call for me. As regulars, we can get a little lax about our own good faith calls and forget how they present from an observer's POV. What seemed obvious to me at the time looked far less than obvious in reviewing it (particularly as the user reported it a month after the fact). I guess the moral of the story is that experience - as well as having cultivated a lot of people with grudges over time - makes one more susceptible to scrutiny. All the more reason to watch one's step. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reaction of JzG on the images: making fun of a women because of her age is beyond the pale. Celebrating banning of the user is probably not a good idea, but at least this is something understandable and well deserved by the banned user. My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the user proved themselves to be highly unproductive to the project, which is the crucial point. We now have a number of articles with content already suffering under the strain of previous edit warring looking even worse for wear... with editors now unprepared to clean them up because they're worn out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They succeeded in getting into disputes on so many pages, it wouldn't surprise me if they were deliberately stirring up trouble. GAB^Hello! 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that? Note that people who revert each other are well meaning and experienced contributors. There is actually an art of creating tensions to divide and rule or sabotage. But a much better strategy is to be "everyone's best friend", as even spies were taught. Sorry, but I must go - not because I am worn out, but because I must focus on my real work. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have never bothered to comment or discuss at Talk:Hard left I await your discussion there - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this to User:AusLondonder, see their talk page.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification to remind you that you may have inadvertently put yourself beyond the WP:3RR rules in your recent editing at Hard Left, I would think very carefully about whether continuing in the same vein is likely to be productive. Additionally, hominem comments, even in edit descriptions, about the motives or intention of fellow editors is not in my view within the spirit of cooperation as WP:CIVIL. --ℕ ℱ 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]