User talk:ThatGasolineSmell

Speedy deletion nomination of We Were Hyphy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on We Were Hyphy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello ThatGasolineSmell. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ThatGasolineSmell. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ThatGasolineSmell|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused - where are you picking all that up from? That I have an undisclosed financial interest? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You have engaged in writing promotional material. In many cases, individuals who do that are being paid to edit. So, before you continue editing, you are required to answer the following with a clear "Yes" or "No", not with a question of your own. Are you being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to as a duty of employment or internship? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm not being paid to write on Wikipedia. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No it's not a duty of employment or internship. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I haven't "engaged in writing promotional material." I've been accused of writing promotional material but it's an accusation without foundation, and it's an accusation without proof.

Surely accusations can't be used as proof of guilt? Surely that turns the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty on its head? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You are bound by policy to disclose your connection per WP:COI and WP:PAID, with the latter being included in Wikimedia's terms of use.

If you have no connection, please explain this request at commons where you explicitly state "I am the copyright holder" and this upload claiming very clearly that it's your own work, are you saying that you have no connection and yet hold the copyright to the films poster and cover art? PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And you are bound by the policy and by the criterion you linked to to follow the rules of those policies and the criteria and you're WILDLY out of bounds. You have a rainbow flag on your name, but you're a cop policing the pages of wikipedia kneeling on my neck, refusing to answer questions, refusing to engage, and then unilaterally deciding on a course of action.

I've made edits to pages for nearly a decade. I've donated every year. No more. I'm done. It's Americans like you that have ruined the world.

Here's hoping your little power play makes you feel good about yourself. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you took 10 seconds to actually read anything that was on your talk page you'd know two things: 1.) it's fully explained to you why it was deleted and 2.) I did not delete it - I don't even have the ability to do so. I merely tagged it, but you can take your accusations of violence and hatred somewhere else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You made the accusations. You accused me of profiting from Wikipedia. That's why we're here. Those accusations are unfounded. And you haven't provided any proof whatsoever. I made an analogy.

That you're an editor here and can't tell the difference between an accusation (which is what you did) and an analogy (which is what I did) is telling. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

at is your connection to the film? h PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking specifically at the criterion quoted it says, "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc."

The page is NOT exclusively promotional. It uses a neutral point of view. And, in fact, even if it was promotional the criterion specifically stages, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."

So if the criterion you quote as grounds for deletion specifically states that rewriting is preferable to deletion, then I'm shocked that you're suggesting deleting. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I will ask you directly again: what is your connection to the film? PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you mean "again"? That's the first time you asked that question.

I went to see it at the San Francisco Documentary Film Festival. I think it's a powerful film and I think it deserves to be seen.

What's your motivation for having the page deleted? Why so eager to silence voices from outside the mainstream? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, delete the page. It makes no difference to me. All you're doing is silencing voices that deserve to be heard. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also an ABSOLUTE disgrace that you fling accusations and then refuse to engage when the criterion you link specifically suggests editing rather than deletion. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has "refused to engage". You've been talked to plenty about it. What confused Praxidicae (and what honestly confuses me too), is that you deny having a connection with the film and its production, but then also claim that you created a promotional poster for it. So, why would you create promotional art for something you're not affiliated with? That aside, the article in question used completely inappropriate, promotional language like We Were Hyphy explores the music that was the beating heart of Hyphy. (breathless, "talking up" type stuff), uniquely charismatic musicians (talking up editorializing like "uniquely charismatic" is not appropriate), spawned by their genius (see previous), legendary figures such as (see previous), and it goes on and on in that marketese, "talking up" tone. That is not acceptable for an article, and things like that are deleted, not "edited"; that is the way we keep Wikipedia from being used as a free billboard for people to push stuff. Articles are required to be strictly neutral in both tone and content, and to stick only to facts verified by reliable and independent sources, not to serve as an editorial to say how great something is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Engagement is a two way street. You've questioned me and I've done my best to answer. You, however, refused to answer my questions. That's not engagement. That's aggressive questioning and avoidance on your behalf.

Those quotations you just mentioned were pulled from the press reports / reviews / articles linked to in the article. If a reporter says someone is "charismatic" is it then wrong for me to add that?

Besides all that - let's say it WAS promotional, let's say it WAS in a "talking up" tone. Wiki's criterion linked to specifically suggests rewriting the article in a neutral tone and NOT deleting it, is the way to go. So why wasn't that done? Why didn't you rewrite it? Why didn't you find a less congratulatory article and pull a quote from that? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Or why not just say, "This is too promotional. Can you rewrite it please?" ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the article that references Hyphy being charismatic: https://thesource.com/2022/04/02/documentary-we-were-hyphy-captures-distinct-bay-area-sound-and-culture/

It says: "WE WERE HYPHY provides an intimate glimpse into the Hyphy culture and experience from two perspectives – through the eyes of the artists who created the iconic sound, and through Bay Area residents who grew up under the influence of hyphy’s uniquely charismatic spell." ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

How do I appeal this deletion?

I'm happy to rewrite it. But deletion is a DISGRACE. And deletion without engagement is hilariously poor form! ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeals are done at deletion review. If you'd prefer to rewrite it, you'll need to do so in a neutral way—if what someone else wrote isn't neutral, paraphrase it into a neutral tone, don't just use it as is. (Also, if you're using direct quotes, they must be actually quoted and sourced; failing to do so is both plagiarism and may also be copyright infringement). If you want to rewrite it, I'm happy to give you a list of sources that were used in the deleted article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Awesome! Just so we're clear, I can rewrite the page if it's more neutral? So I should avoid the deletion review and just create a new page. Is that it?

Or should I request a deletion review? And then rewrite the page after that's OKed?

I think I know how I fucked up. I reached out to the film's director through the film's website and just copied / pasted his response into the copyright place. So apologies for that. I can just leave the movie poster off the page next time. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That does not explain the OTRS ticket. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

What's an OTRS ticket? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is generally speaking my advice for very new editors to write a new article as a draft and request a review via articles for creation rather than attempting to create directly in mainspace. Creating an appropriate new article is a pretty challenging thing to do, so doing it that way and getting feedback instead of trying to get it right from the very first edit is probably the best way to go. That said—yeah, that would require a lot of rewriting. Take all the adjectives and "talking up" out of it (whether someone else said it or not), describe neutrally what it is, and there might even be some chance the film might be notable. But that's ultimately up to the community, not just me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Cool. Copy that. Will do. Thanks @Seraphimblade 2601:647:4C80:6ED0:21A3:8627:1FB4:581C (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade Was just sent this by the film director. What's going on here?

To me, it looks like content was flagged and taken down for no discernible reason that I can see because to have content deleted when Wikipedia's own protocols call for it to be "edited rather than removed" is a VERY severe reading of the rules.

And then, coincidentally, a third party contacts the director of the film and does a sales pitch - with language very like the language used here.

Can you explain what's happening? And why it's happening? This leaves a VERY bad taste in the mouth.

Who are elitewickiwriters and how do they have access to pages that are deleted? And reasons for the deletion?

If there's a perfectly plausible reason for all this, would love to hear it.

I'm not a new editor. I've been editing stuff on wikipedia for more than a decade. Nothing I've written has ever been flagged. Granted I'm not great on the back end but I've edited a TON of stuff, improved a TON of pages and this is completely out of left field. I've probably created a half dozen pages and edited more than 500 pages.

Communication between film director and elitewikiwriters below. Name and email address removed but happy to DM you.

Extract from email:

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From:

Date: Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:35 PM

Subject: Re: Wikipedia Page Deletion

To:

Hey L,

The reason that your Wikipedia page got taken down is that it was published through an ammature editor profile, May I know if you had it done by a freelancer? Or did someone from your company publish it? Also, it had ambiguous marketing content which is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines. You see, not everyone can go ahead and publish a Wikipedia page since it is not as easy as it seems. Now, if you wish to get the page live again and get published on Wikipedia, let me know.

Our company is one of the only two companies who can successfully publish a Wikipedia page and that too with a success rate of 97.8%. We have been in the business for over a decade now and provide this discreet service to hundreds of individuals and companies. We have mature Wikipedia editor profiles and admins onboard to cater the services and make sure it stays up once we publish it.

Regards,

A

Sender notified by

Mailtrack

23/08/22, 00:30:33

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:29 AM wrote:

Hey A,

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia. But I gave permission for the We Were Hyphy poster to be used. Is that the issue?

- L

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:02 AM Alex wrote:

Hello,

Are you interested in getting the Wikipedia page back?

Waiting for your reply! Thanks! ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a scam email, not from anyone at Wikipedia. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I know it's not from Wikipedia. That wasn't the question.

The questions were: How did they get the contact details for the film director? And why are they repeating the unfounded claims made on this page?

And, I supposed, the implied follow up questions are: how is stuff like that not stopped? While perfectly good content is taken down without right of reply? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't know how they get that information, presumably by googling the subject. It has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

One second, are you suggesting that random people randomly googled and found out that a page was taken down? And then randomly googled and randomly found the appropriate contact?

That's all a wee bit random isn't it?!? A wee bit fortuitous for the random googler!! ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't that hard, and doesn't even require Google. All page deletions are logged here and are plainly visible to anyone in the world with an internet connection. There are plenty of scammers on the internet looking to make a quick buck off making Wikipedia pages of non-notable people and topics - taking money from those people even though the stuff will be deleted if found anyway. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As for how they got the email, the movie director has it on their website, also plainly visible to anyone in the world with an internet connection. There's no "leaky bucket", so let's get back to the main point of discussion here - promotional language in your edits. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 19:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the very definition of a leaky bucket!

Why'd you have a page for deletions?

As to "the main point of discussion here", you're absolutely right! And that's the question I've been trying to get answered for a week now! :-D

Let's even say it was "promotional language" (even though all quotes were pulled from the press coverage as explained above) then wiki's policies suggest a rewrite and not a deletion, correct? Then why the deletion?

And why the constant jumping in of different wiki editors with different points of view and different questions? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the crux of the issue remains:

1. You made unfounded accusations

2. You didn't engage when those accusations were refuted

3. The content was unilaterally taken down when wiki's own policies - that you linked to - suggest that rewriting is a preferred course of action.

4. A scam reached out to the director of the film offering to correct based on the unfounded accusations

Like, how is all that possible?! Why aren't there policies in place to prevent all that?! ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of participating in a scam, you'd better not beat around the bush and imply it and provide evidence. The appropriate place to deal with such things is at WP:ANI, not here making wild accusations on your talk page. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You wiki responders are the most sensitive people I've ever come across.

The ONLY accusation on this entire page was the initial accusation when YOU accused me of getting paid to write on wiki.

All I'm doing is looking for answers as to why this happened and trying to figure out how to stop it. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Like where in the sentence "Like, how is all that possible?! Why aren't there policies in place to prevent all that?!" is there an accusation?

But the accusation in this is so heavy handed it's like a hammer to the head: "The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake " ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

On this "you" obviously isn't "you" personally but "you" as in wikipedia and it's army of anonymous responders who jump in at random and take actions that are against wikipedia's own policies... and then, almost miraculously, random people randomly google random pages, spot they were taken down, and pitch the person who the page was about.

If you don't see there's a leaky bucket somewhere on the wiki side and do something to try to fix that rather than haranguing me then it'll get to the stage that wikipedia simply can't be trusted.

You're handcuffing perfectly innocent editors and letting "scams" (in your own words) run rampant... ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

These scams are run by people who aren't actual editors. You can keep whining about it if you'd like but it won't change anything and WMF (who own WP) have no ability to do anything about it for the same reason no one can do anything about people who try to do car insurance scams over the phone can't be dealt with. But if you continue to accuse editors directly and indirectly of participating in this, whether as a group or individually, you better damn well have evidence or you're going to wind up blocked for WP:ASPERSIONS. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm NOT accusing you!!!!!

I'm trying to get YOUR accusation of me overturned!

What can't you see in this? Seriously?

This started with an unfounded accusation from wikipedia.

It resulted in a page being removed that SHOULDN'T have been removed.

All I want to do is get that page back up.

Read back over this page. I'm looking for answers as to why you're doing things that run directly counter to wiki's policies. That's it. And when asked for answers the default setting from you is to accuse me of accusing you and threaten to ban me.

And I'm still no closer to getting answers as to why the original accusation was made! It's hilarious badly done!!! :-D ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The page isn't going to be restored, the film isn't notable. It wildly fails WP:NFILM. Wikipedia articles aren't a right or guarantee to anyone. Either you can process and understand this or continue wasting your time complaining here. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It actually is notable. I know this because I did a TON of research before I wrote the piece. And everything in the piece was pulled from a quote.

It's been covered here:

SF Gate

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Hyphy-Tech-And-The-Japanese-American-Internent-17010934.php (Myers)

The Hype Magazine

Trailer Debut

https://www.thehypemagazine.com/?s=we+were+hyphy

KXSU Radio 90.1FM (Stanford Radio)

ib32222hyphy1.mp3

The Source

Trailer and Press Release Announcement

https://thesource.com/2022/03/24/new-trailer-we-were-hyphy-documentary/

Breezeway Productions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKmSq92RAHE

Beyond Chron

https://beyondchron.org/preview-of-cinequest-cinejoy-2022/

Mercury News

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/29/we-were-hyphy-film-explores-overlooked-bay-area-music-scene/ (Myers)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/29/we-were-hyphy-film-explores-overlooked-bay-area-music-scene/?clearUserState=true (no pay wall)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/31/7-terrific-bay-area-things-to-do-this-weekend-april-1-3/ (McMullen)

East Bay Times

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/03/29/we-were-hyphy-film-explores-overlooked-bay-area-music-scene/ (Myers)

Marin Independent Journal

https://www.marinij.com/2022/04/07/cinequest-2022-heres-what-to-watch-at-the-cinejoy-virtual-film-fest-2/ (Myers)

Local News Matters

https://localnewsmatters.org/2022/03/29/pass-the-remote-standout-films-at-cinejoy-that-shed-light-on-mental-health-struggles-and-more/ (Myers)

CBS San Francisco

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/03/31/new-documentary-we-were-hyphy-highlights-rise-of-a-bay-area-hip-hop-movement/

KSFM 102.5

https://www.audacy.com/ksfm/latest/trailer-out-now-for-we-were-hyphy-documentary-watch (Trailer)

KSFM 102.5

https://www.audacy.com/ksfm/latest/we-were-hyphy-documentary-out-now-mia-amor-talks-with?utm_campaign=sharebutton&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=KSFMFM (Interview)

48 Hills

https://48hills.org/2022/03/listen-the-20-best-hyphy-songs/

Music City Drive-In

http://musiccitydrivein.com/2022/04/01/we-were-hyphy-movie-review/ (Review)

Salt Lake Dirt

https://saltlakedirt.com/film/f/we-were-hyphy---episode-56

Review Nation

https://reviewnation.net/review-we-were-hyphy-a-love-letter-to-the-musical-movement/

CandidxCinema

https://candidxcinema.com/2022/04/07/we-were-hyphy-review/

Television

CBS Morning News

New Documentary ‘We Were Hyphy’ Highlights Rise of a Bay Area Hip-Hop Movement - https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/03/31/new-documentary-we-were-hyphy-highlights-rise-of-a-bay-area-hip-hop-movement/

Print / Online

The Source

We Were Hyphy Captures Distinct Bay Area Sound and Culture - https://thesource.com/2022/04/02/documentary-we-were-hyphy-captures-distinct-bay-area-sound-and-culture/

San Francico Standard

‘We Were Hyphy’ and the Glory of Mid-2000s Bay Area Hip-Hop - https://sfstandard.com/arts-culture/we-were-hyphy-revisits-the-glory-days-of-mid-2000s-bay-area-hip-hop%ef%bf%bc/

KQED

We Were Hyphy Documentary Remembers the Bay Area’s Iconic Rap Subculture - https://www.kqed.org/arts/13911492/we-were-hyphy-documentary-cinequest-laurence-madrigal

San Jose Mercury News

We Were Hyphy explores overlooked Bay Area Music Scene - https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/29/we-were-hyphy-film-explores-overlooked-bay-area-music-scene/ ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I explained to you exactly why the article was deleted, and gave you examples (though by no means an exhaustive list) of the type of language that made the article inappropriately promotional. Praxidicae has explained to you how the scammers both saw why the article was deleted (literally anyone in the world can see that; it's recorded in the public page logs) and got their email address (it is listed on a public website). I don't know how you figure anyone has failed to engage with you. And it is not against our policies to delete advertisements; that is explicitly permitted by section G11 of the speedy deletion policy. This has all been explained to you repeatedly, so I might suggest that if anyone is in need of rereading the above, that individual may be you. We cannot stop scammers from operating—we already do have policies against practices like undeclared paid editing, but scammers are not concerned with and do not follow our policies anyway. All we can do is remove them when we catch them. Now, a G11 deletion has nothing to do with the notability of the subject—it's possible this is notable; I'm not prepared to offer an opinion on that. But even if it is, any article written on it must be neutral, not promotional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yay! Back to another person with a different point of view! And another probably cul-de-sac to wander down!

You explained why you thought the article should have been deleted but only after the article was deleted.

You didn't explain the reason given for the deletion at the start or why that deletion is contrary to wikipedia's own policies. Again:

1. I'm not paid to write on wikipedia - that's the original reason for the deletion, as per the top of the page. So the film shouldn't have been removed in the first place!

In this reply you claim "deletion has nothing to do with notability". Yet a different claim further up this page by a different user says "the page isn't going to be restored. The film isn't notable". i.e. the reason for deletion is notability.

So I respond to that and you jump in with a different reading.

But here's the crux - you and all the different people offering different OPINIONS all run contrary to wiki's policy which specifically states, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."

And no body, not any one of the 6 wiki editors or so has even attempted to answer that question. It's impossible to deal with this because there is no consistency or standardization of response from the your side. It's like musical chairs.

There's obfuscation, there's bullying, there's unilateral decision making without explanation, but there isn't engagement. Unless, I suppose, you're using "engagement" to mean a hostile battle because that's exactly what has happened. Wiki through its army of disconnected editors have attacked me and haven't listened to a single, solitary thing I've said.

And that is, to be brutally blunt about it, an absolute disgrace. ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you become an editor? Seriously. How do you volunteer?

Because I reckon I could be a whole lot more reasonable, less sensitive, more logical, more inclined to listen to opposing points of view, and more inclined to base decisions on stated policies rather than a personal reading and opinion, than the half dozen people I've had to deal with here.

Is there a process? ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You become an editor by...well, editing. So you've already done it; you did that as soon as you made your first edit. You don't have to fill out any forms or something. I think I see where you're confused, so I'll try to clear it up. The reason the article was deleted was because it was promotional. Not because you were or weren't paid or anything else. Indeed, I've deleted promotional articles where I'm pretty sure the editor who wrote them wasn't being paid, and was just a fan of the person or organization in question. Doesn't really matter—if it's promotional in tone, it goes. Now, sometimes writing of promotional content raises concerns that the editor is being paid, but even if they're not, the promotional article was still properly deleted. Notability is a separate question, and each of us might offer our own opinion on that (I won't, as I said, offer one at all, as that's not even at issue.) If you think you can write a neutrally worded article which demonstrates notability, without all the "talking up" and puff adjectives and sticking to facts verified by reliable sources, you could do that right now. So either do or don't. The one you did write will not be restored, as it was promotional. So, you can spend your efforts here on something that's not going to happen, or you could try using those sources you listed to write an improved draft that may be workable. Your call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Cool. Copy that. Thanks @Seraphimblade ThatGasolineSmell (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: We Were Hyphy has been accepted

We Were Hyphy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)