User talk:Vgmddg

Hi there! Feel free to leave me a message and I will probably respond.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

[1]

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. -- œ ^™ 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There should be an edit summary Barnstar (if there isn't already one)! --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Source

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)[reply]

(Assuming the assumption of good faith) My personal opinion is that ideally every article should have more than one source. If an article only uses information from one source then eventually that article will essentially turn a copy of the source. Also, in terms of the specific article in question, as of right now it currently only consists of one sentence. Now granted, the article could be expanded using information from the reference listed, but perhaps not everybody has access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If there is another source that could be used then broadcasting that it needs one may prompt a passerby to add another, possibly more accessible source. I'm not going to engage in an edit war or anything. I just wanted to give my point of view.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)[reply]