User talk:Strdst grl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please place new messages at the bottom, with a new heading. Please remember to specify which article you are talking about.

If you are posting to complain that I have reverted an edit of yours that wasn't vandalism, then you have my apologies, unless you didn't add an edit summary, in which case it's your own fault for doing a major edit without an edit summary. If, however, I just reverted an edit of yours for no reason that you can see, then I am very sorry. I probably mistook it for vandalism, and I was not trying to be unproductive in any way.

Contents 1 Warning 2 My apologies 3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature 4 Barnstar! 5 Neil Gaiman importance

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was working on Digital television in China (PRC), and you reverted my edits. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

Okay, you're right. It wasn't vandalism. I have removed the warning and restored your text. Thank you for bringing it to my attention :-) Sorry again! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature

Assessment has now been added to the project page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I see your name often enough on my watchlist reviewing book articles I have watchlisted (of which there are several). You are doing a lot of good work, and I encourage you to keep it up! It's appreicated. If you ever need help with something, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Thanks again! seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Gaiman importance

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but in your recent edit to Talk:Neil_Gaiman your comments were "rated mid importance"; however, on the page itself the rating is "Top" importance. I'm not involved in ratings but I thought I should bring this to your attention. Thanks, Macduffman (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)