Hi there! Feel free to leave me a message and I will probably respond.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If there was a barnstar for rigorous edit summary usage you'd definitely deserve one! lol! ;P
Seriously though that's a good thing. That was so refreshing to see considering how many users barely make the effort to explain any of their edits. -- Ϫ 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think you're being over-enthusiastic in using ((one source)). OK, the stub Lucy Garnett only had one source, but it was the ultimate in reliability (ODNB). If you look at the template documentation at Template:One_source, you'll see it urges the use of discretion: in particular "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." There are more important things to do to new stub articles - that one needed a default sort, and birth and death categories, and improvements to its categories, and ((stub)) or, better, a sorted stub tag. It didn't need ((one source)). PamD (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)