Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + +
reply
Daniel, I don't find your comments and edits to be productive. As I suggested before, can you try making some ''substantive'', encyclopedic edits first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)
Daniel, I don't find your comments and edits to be productive. As I suggested before, can you try making some ''substantive'', encyclopedic edits first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:41, 12 January 2011 (EST)
:I'm sorry Andy, I've tried to follow the lead of the most active editors here and thus thought my edits ''were'' substantive and ecyclopedic. I will try harder in the future. I have been complimented on my satirical pieces in our local Church magazine, so maybe some high quality satire edits would be considered substantive? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 11:10, 12 January 2011 (EST)
:I'm sorry Andy, I've tried to follow the lead of the most active editors here and thus thought my edits ''were'' substantive and ecyclopedic. I will try harder in the future. I have been complimented on my satirical pieces in our local Church magazine, so maybe some high quality satire edits would be considered substantive? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 11:10, 12 January 2011 (EST)
::No, Daniel, your satire would not "be considered substantive." Try doing some encyclopedic editing, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 12 January 2011 (EST)