Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zulu (musician)


 * [This was moved to the talk page and was originally a response to Mr. Rowland's comments on the project page.] Please refer to WP:AOHA and WP:NPA and WP:AFDEQ and stop repeatedly and falsely accusing me of vandalism and edit warring, especially in places where it is inappropriate. I removed uncited, biased information from your article, and a user (with the apparent use of sockpuppeting) was edit warring to revert my changes. The reverting user was IP blocked due disruptive editing and block evasion. My attempt to keep the content off the page falls under one of the exceptions of the 3RR. Despite being an exception, I stopped after the third revision and posted the issue to the dispute resolution board. I have actively made a point to show that I am the same user as that IP (see my username, it's reference to that IP). A user has been repeatedly reverting your article to include off-topic, biased, and unsourced information and to remove maintenance tags to the point the page had to be protected and their IP blocked. If that's not vandalism, I don't know what is. If you wish to discuss further, please take it to the talk page on your article since it is is not relevant here. 217IP (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a vandal and Zulu is not alone here What's your damage? Here's the warning that you keep deleting from your old talk page. Get off your pathetic power trip! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.96.93.217&diff=667970096&oldid=667683454 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B04:4F30:78E1:68A2:76A5:3FA3 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You even apologized for it here before deleting it altogether. Just sad. Cover your tracks better. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.96.93.217&diff=668131974&oldid=668007231 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B04:4F30:78E1:68A2:76A5:3FA3 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing a notice from your own talk page is a perfectly normal way of acknowledging you have read it. It is an automated message that is added to a talk page regardless of exceptions or who is vandalizing. Please refer to the guidelines I posted above regarding civility and personal attacks. Your harassment here is inappropriate, please stop. 217IP (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude you are SO BUSTED. Why you'd apologize and explain to automated message? I tell every one who knows to take a look. You are harassing all good artistes this way man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.186.80 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rowland, there was no apologizing, I added an excerpt to the alert anyone viewing the situation that the revisions I made were done under an exception to the 3RR policy, which again is normal procedure. After the dispute resolution was resolved, I removed the notice since it was no longer relevant. You are continuing to ignore my requests to remain civil and are continuing to harass me, this time under an anonymous IP. Your attacks on me, your attempt to brigade others to harass and attack me, your unwillingness to read Wikipedia policies, your failure to follow policies after being asked to several times, and your inability provide actual arguments only furthers the evidence that you only care about your article here for self promotion, rather than actually contributing to Wikipedia. 217IP (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't call everyone Mr. Rowland...lol If I have something to say I will log on and tell you straight. Also I am sure everyone cares about their article. No arguments there :) I'm honored that people went through such lengths over the years.

Meanwhile you are essentially cannibalizing the platform (defeating the stated purpose) by nominating everything for deletion. You'll see the ill effects of that manifest over time.

I have been in touch with a former editor who prepared pages on obscure blues singers... and they were all deleted for much the same reason.

The editor on the project page who mentioned Wiki P0rN and other editors' "Gamer Gate" activities shows the personality types I am dealing with. The wealth of human knowledge accumulates every day, but your work only ensures that there will be gaps here.

Your quests for "notability" amount to posting (of course within guidelines) about your niche interests and deleting everyone else's. Editors should be required to improve articles, and have limits placed on AFD nominations. Such policies would help. As things are, it's only feeding your "God Complex". Your activity shows it, as do those childish .GIF images on your pages.

Even if I don't have an article... MAYBE my role should be to hang around for a while and police your efforts in my spare time. (Hmmm...) I mean I've got plenty of it, being all "non-notable" and whatnot..lol Mczulu (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We certainly welcome editors who are willing to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ... among them the ones that govern notability. There is a reason, in fact, why those pages on obscure blues singers were deleted: because they were obscure.  Wikipedia has certain standards a musician must clear in order to merit an article, and obscure ones few have heard of seldom meet them. As far as whether 217IP is "nominating everything for deletion," so far he's nominated eight articles, out of the nearly five million ones on the English Wikipedia.  If his goal is indeed to "nominate everything" for deletion, he really has to step up his game.  And as far as "policing" his efforts go ... as to that, there's a policy governing that too: WP:HARASS.  Bon chance.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may... The thing that lead to the obscurity of many of the Blues artists was this imperialistic attitude that perhaps they do not deserve their footnote in history. If you look at the article here on Hank Williams and compare it to the article on Rufus Payne (his mentor), you can see a stark difference. Once someone has been afforded the consideration of mainstream media (for whichever reason) it makes them "notable". Still it is no indicator of their overall impact on society. It may be an indicator of their general notability, but not their importance. That question is never raised here due to the casual dismissal that you all default to. As far as User:217IP his efforts began and ended with me. Everything else was just a smokescreen. I'm honored.... not notable, but honored :) Mczulu (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)