User talk:RichardLandsbrook

TGR -- Thank you for your reply. I don't quite understand how this works, but... Yes, the problem, as explained, is complicated. Its not easy to put a long explanation in the short one-line space they give. I will try again, offering as much as that line will allow. It feels uncomfortable to remove information, since that is what the Wiki is all about. Organizations like Wiki and the Free Software Foundation are among the Internet's great achievements. If only we could pass a law limiting commercial interests to everything except the internet. Ah, well. As it stands, we'll see Microsoft putting the first billboard on the Moon ... :) Anyway, appreciate the heads-up. I kept watching YOUR talk page, when apparently, I should actually have been watching my own. --Richard
 * Sorry for the long space of time between replies, it took me a while to find this page. It isn't actually necessary to insert a long summary, the anti-vandals will probably accept "removing inaccuracies" (I would). The thing is, any suitable (word defined by community processes) summary is OK. By the way, I reformatted your previous message to allow it to be seen more clearly by Hugglers (the previous layout would have caused confusion if someone vandalised it and prevented reversion). -- The Grim  Reaper  14:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks very much for your help, TGR. Much appreciated!

RichardLandsbrook (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you for your contributions. Thank you for removing inaccurate and false content from an article. It's because of people like you, people who repair damaged articles, and without a single vandalism edit, that the Wiki works. -- The Grim  Reaper  12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)