Difference between revisions of "User talk:DanielG"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Useful links
(suggestion) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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) | ||
Revision as of 16:10, January 12, 2011
Welcome!
Hello, DanielG, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, DanielG!
- --Jpatt 00:14, 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?--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? DanielG 11:10, 12 January 2011 (EST)