User talk:Stiles

I NO LONGER USE WIKIPEDIA - IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEAVE MESSAGES WITH THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING A RESPONSE.

Leave a message for me by clicking on the + at the top of this page.

Alcohol trade

Hi, I just removed a section on the alcohol trade from the alcohol article, because it was on the wrong page - that page is about the organic compound family. In fact Muslim Saudi Arabia is one of the world's main producers of alcohols, more specifically methanol, the simplest alcohol (not used in drinks)! I suspect you should either write a separate article (that would be interesting - smuggling alcohol has been popular for centuries), or perhaps place it somewhere like in the alcoholic beverage article. Be sure to integrate it with the existing text (such as "Legal considerations"). Cheers, Walkerma 08:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know of this, because I spent considerable time cleaning up the article. If it's possible, it would be great if you could add what you removed to the article it belongs in.

Random gibberish?

The stuff you removed on "illegal drugs trade", could you explain why you removed it? I thought it was pretty informative, but perhaps it didn't conform to wikipedia's standards or something? Jack Daw 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about gibberish lines referred to at most three lines from the intro I removed. I removed them because they seemed to have been added for no other reason than to fill space up. I say this because there was absolutely nowhere to put them in the article, and the added nothing of value, let alone the fact that they were unverifiable. You probably think I removed something important that was there before. Make sure that the section or part you're thinking of hasn't been moved elsewhere within the same article, or another article. I generally do not removed anything that others contributed unless they were really of no value. Can you tell me what parts you're thinking of so I can tell you what I did with them? The parts that I moved were either taken to another article where they belonged (i.e. the trafficking of LSD went to the LSD article) or I moved things down or up the article, and organized them better with their headings. I took some info from one place and moved it to a more appropriate place, as well as some moving of similar information to the same area (i.e. the grouping of illegal trade of legal drugs). Also, check the history page to see what exactly happened. I appreciate you contacting me and letting me know. If you have any other questions, let me know!

re: Hip hop models.

Please leave new messages at the bottom of my talk page, not the top.
You only use "==References==" for overall sources. All of your sources had in-line references, which I converted to the proper format (which is the "==Notes==" section with the automated footnotes system. It's called "Notes" because it contains footnotes.). Footnotes are the proper way to do in-line citations in a professional paper, and they work better for an article like Hip hop models, so that each reference and the information from it can be linked to its place in the article, and the information on each reference can be available in case the external link stops working.

Other articles have other styles of referencing (mostly because doing a simple [bracket] referencing is quicker and easier), which is fine, but for the large number of inline citations you had, this method works better. --FuriousFreddy 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hip hop" is not a proper noun.

It is the name of a genre of music, not a proper noun. Therefore, it should not be capitalized. --FuriousFreddy 13:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Hi, I noticed that you recently added headers to the Jennifer Love Hewitt article. Whether or not the article should have headers is currently under dispute, and is actually undergoing a Request for Comment. If you're so inclined, I invite you to visit the article's talk page and weigh in with your opinion on the matter. -- MisterHand 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. In fact I didn't revert your other edits as a sort of by-product; I thought about each of them. You deleted a comment that included a citation for reasons that seemed simply to involve wanting to defend Hewitt. My impression is that she's not widely admired as an actress, and that the material in question (which I didn't write, incidentally) adequately summed that up. If I'm wrong about that, then the best thing to do is bring evidence either to the article or to the Talk page. You also added a (huge) image, whose copyright status is:

This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. For more information, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

I didn't think that its use in this article constituted "identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", given that the article already uses an image with the same basic copyright status. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. With regard to the image, the hugeness wasn't related to the copyright issue, but to Wikipedia norms; images are thumbed unless there's good reason not to do so (perhaps because they're very small), so that the reader can decide whether or not to see the full-sized version.

As to copyright, this has been the subject of much discussion for quite a time. We generally play it very safe when using fair-use images (hence their removal from user pages, etc.). Perhaps Wikipedia would win a court case on the matter — but I don't think that we want things to go that far. Given that all an image is needed for on an article like this is to show what she looks like, isn't one enough? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Good

Fan, ameteur, and self-submit-info sites are not verifiable sources. Examples of verifiable sources are reputable news/entertainment websites, magazines, and newspapers. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Crumbsucker 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Wikipedia:Verifiability and there's nothing there about amateur or fan websites. Besides, what qualifies a website as being amateur? Is it the fact that there are is no financial stake? Whatever the case, meaganfan.com does not violate any Wikipedia policies, as far as I know. There's nothing to suggest that it contains false information. It is not a self-submit website, because it does not take visitor input, and as far as we know, all information on that website is based on research the webmaster did properly. Nevertheless, there is no requirement on Wikipedia that a referenced website provide information regarding what source it used.

I appreciate you letting me know of this. On another note, can you please ban Vik Vah and his/her partners in vandalism? Check out my post about vandalism on the Meagan Good talk page, and also check out the page history. You'll see that Vik Vah has vandalised the page on at least four occasions, and several others have done it at least once or more. Check my post on the talk page for more information on these people, and what has happened. It would be great if they were banned, because there is no evidence of that they want to contribute to Wikipedia. Stiles 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan and personal websites may or may not contain false info, but we can't tell, which is why Wikipedia doesn't use them and tries to only cite reputable websites, magazines, etc. (It's true that many Wikipedia articles don't follow this rule, but it's something we all have to work on fixing). There's additional info here. Savoy, Essence, and Sister2Sister are all fine as sources, especially if they are interview articles. Only administrators can ban people (i'm not one), but you can deal with vandalism with the instructions here. Crumbsucker 07:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Stiles! Thanks for the request. Personally, i advice you to be cool and relaxed. First because User:Vik Vah's actions (see their contributions) are not considered vandalism per Wikipedia:Vandalism. However, if you feel that those actions really bother you big times than you can post a comment at WP:ANB where such action are reported. You can copy and paste there the comment you made on the AIAV page. If you need any more assistance, pls do feel free to approach me. Cheers. -- Szvest 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Vandalism and blocks

The key reason IP addresses are not permenently blocked, in general, is that the IP addresses themselves are not permenent. Even static IP addresses can be resold if the customer leaves the ISP. So in general, we start with small blocks and increase them if the vandalism continues.

The general blocking policy bends over backwards to give the users chances to change their minds about vandalizing and to become useful contributers. A lot of the blocking policy is formed along these lines. Blocks are to stop vandalism, but they start short to give the user extra chances. If the user waits out the block and immediately starts vandalizing again, then that's given weight by the next admin when deciding if/how much to increase the time on the next block. - TexasAndroid 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Buffie The Body.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Buffie The Body.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Genidealingwithfairuse 16:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unless a legit fair use rational is provided the picture will be deleted.Geni 05:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair use rationale on that image's page. Check it again. Stiles 06:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it. It isn't legit. In fact is it a classic non legit rational.Geni 06:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are right, but like I said, the image is not something I tend to anymore, and this issue would be better suited on either the image's talkpage or the article's talkpage. Please do let the other user who has an interest in this know of what you intend on doing. Stiles 02:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Cochran

I am sorry if you feel that my edit of the Johnnie Cochran article was inappropriate. I apologize for any grammatical errors, as they were unintentional.

If you feel I have deleted some pertinent text, by all means please restore the text in question. If you take a look at my personal "Talk" page, however, you will see my editing philosophy - I like to delete as little as possible. If I deleted something, it was likely because it was addressed elsewhere in the article. My intent was not to really radically change the actual text - but the article had no organization to it.

Again, sorry if I have stepped on any toes. However, I normally do not ask others for PERMISSION to edit an article, especially when I am keeping 90-95% of the current text in there (and just regrouping it under different headings, so that there is a chronology to the events). I believe that's why Wikipedia says "Be Bold!" when you edit.

Best regards. NickBurns 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biden article

Regarding your question about the Biden article. It is my opinion, and I think widely held, that an encyclodedia article should contain information of substance and lasting importance, something people would consider newsworthy years after the event. The issue you wrote (so well) about, is one of probably dozens/hundreds of such issues effecting public figures, and to describe each one in such detail would make an entirely unreadable article. These incidents are mostly useful for illustrating aspects of a public person's career and personality. This topic is already covered in the article, however, and the examples given have certainly stood the time test. If this incident comes to rank there with them it should be added, but I doubt that it will. Perhaps you should consider wrting something about it for Wikinews? Thanks for asking, and I hope this is a useful and satisfactory explanation of my editing. stilltim 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section 5.

"News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current events for examples."

I know you mean well, but this is official WP policy, and the fact that some editors may not follow it does not change the policy. It is not my intent to see the story omitted, but rather delivered in the proscribed way. As pointed out in the policy there are at least two appropriate places for this contribution, but the encyclopedia is not one of them. All news stories belong in Wikinews or current events, but as encyclodedia editors, we must indeed discriminate among them. That's what editors do. We need to wait at least a few weeks or months to see if the incident is "weighty" or "notable." Hence the prohibition on breaking stories. Please move this contribution to one or both of these locations, until it becomes clear that these remarks have had some meaningful and substantial long-term effect on the overall campaign or his career. stilltim 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meagan Good 193)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Meagan Good 193 (King-November 2005) (Small).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meagan Good 88)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Meagan Good 88 (D.E.B.S) (Small).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 04:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Cafe

Pacific Cafe has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this company might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laci Peterson Article

I've laid the groundwork to begin some large scale pruning, merging, and improving of the article to make it more encylopedic. I see that you have it listed as your current project and thought I'd drop by. Do you have any objections to or ideas for a substantial modification of the article, or can I begin editing at will? --Detruncate 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Esther Baxter 7 Small.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Esther Baxter 7 Small.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Reagan - Iran Contra Affair.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reagan - Iran Contra Affair.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Reagan - Iran Contra Affair.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reagan - Iran Contra Affair.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Esther Baxter 1 Small.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Esther Baxter 1 Small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Downey High School

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Thomas Downey High School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dppowell 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ki Toy Johnson Black Men Magazine Cover.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ki Toy Johnson Black Men Magazine Cover.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of William Hodgeman

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on William Hodgeman, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because William Hodgeman is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting William Hodgeman, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Azzareya Curtis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Azzareya Curtis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

no claims of genuine notability, no verifiable information indicating notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Azzareya Curtis

I have nominated Azzareya Curtis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzareya Curtis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of La'Shontae Heckerd

The article La'Shontae Heckerd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Whyte Chocolate

The article Whyte Chocolate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No sourcing. Virtually all significant Ghits turn out to be variations of the article text, so either there's no coverage beyond Wikipedia mirrors or the article has been lifted from an external source that can't be verified. Same pseudonym is used by others, this subject probably not even the most notable user.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hip hop model for deletion

The article Hip hop model is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip hop model until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]