ZfJames

Darius robin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at iPhone X, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Darius robin (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your first few edits were vandalism. Your last edit was not. Please understand the time at which I give you the warning, and stop searching the warning templates page for random warnings. Darius robin (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin:I am neither searching Wikipedia for random warnings nor am I vandalizing pages. Please either explain how my edits were vandalism or stop trying to create conflicts. Your removal of my content was indeed a violation of Wikipedia's requirement to assume good faith.

These two edits (1 and 2) clearly portray vandalism, one of them adds false information and the other removes content without reason. Please stop accusing others of violating Wikipedia rules without you following them yourself. Darius robin (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: What false information was added specifically? What content was removed without a reason? Are you disputing my edit summaries? If so, I will gladly update my edit summaries to reflect the changes, but I need specific examples of the false information added. Venator 14:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please check this and this. If you can't figure out what you did wrong, you're stupid. THANK YOU. Darius robin (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RE: Darius Robin and New Editors

I believe that it is rather excessive to put a level 4 vandalism warning on a (relatively) new editor's page after several good faith edits. While it is certainly appropriate to avoid vandalism, this type of action seems to be a direct violation of both the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF) and the general guideline to not bite newcomers (WP:BITE). Since Darius' note was on my talk page, I did want to take the time to clarify this point, but I do not have any desire to rekindle this minor 'war.'

It's not vandalism!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just added the names of Donald Trump Jr.'s five children! What's wrong?? Marie.margaretha (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that these edits appear to be in violation of the specific request on the page to not add the children's names. However, I agree with you that your edits were not vandalism and that I was incorrect in my assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZfJames (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism but it was a BLP violation and edit warring. Marie.margaretha, please obtain consensus at Talk:Donald Trump Jr. before reinstating. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Thanks for noting that! I did mention that on Marie.margaretha's talk page, but I wasn't sure if I should have left it or not. zfJames (chat page) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My page My rules

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see I am dealing with you again.Which I am not excited about! I see you are complaining about removing stuff from my own page. The issue was resolved before hand and I was just clearing space. And who has time to just troll Wikipedia looking for itty bitty stuff like you do.So get a life .And BUZZ off . JFarmsJD8295 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree @JFarmsJD8295: I apologize for re-instating content on your talk page. After reviewing the appropriate guidelines, I realize that I was indeed in the wrong and I appreciate your message notifying me of my mistake. Thank you for your time! I should note that I have not been 'watching' or 'stalking' your talk page in any fashion; I merely happened upon the page during the course of my other edits. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Good that you agree with me.Next time try to read guidelines before changing stuff. JFarmsJD8295 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Jobs Wiki page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello ZfJames,

I made some good faith edits on the page today and it was rolled back by you and another editor. I don't believe the source for Steve Jobs supposed birth name is verifiable. The page states that his birth name is Abdul Lateef Jandali, and references someone claiming to be his cousin. There is no documented proof that his birth name is as listed on the Wikipedia page. I was not attempting to vandalize the page, and good faith edits should not be viewed as attempted vandalism.

Can someone independently verify his birth name before posting this on Wikipedia?

I also have never heard or read of Mr. Jobs referring to himself by that name. The notes section also states that his name was changed to Steve Jobs. Is there proof of that anywhere, or is it assumption by the editor of the page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sookie7 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sookie7: Hey, Sookie7! Welcome to my talk page! You are absolutely correct: the edits that I reverted (I’ll add a link tomorrow if I remember to the specific entry in the log) were not vandalism and I believe that my edit summary assumed that you were acting in good faith (if it did not, I apologise). I had two problems with your edits. First, the syntax of the sentence (as you amended it), was, to put it frankly, rather garbled. If I remember correctly (I apologise for having to rely somewhat on memory here, but I an editing on a mobile device, so it is more difficult to just check), there were several sentences mashed into one and, even if several sentences hadn’t been mashed into one, the placement of your information did not meet the traditional encyclopaedic method of starting off biographical articles. Second, your information didn’t belong in the introduction of the page. Specifics about people’s family background is usually put into a separate section entitled something like ‘Early Life.’ You will actually find that similar content to the material you added was already included under the section on Steve Job’s childhood. Because of those two issues, I gave you a level 1 (i.e. friendly) note about Wikipedia’s manual of style guidelines. I did not cite you for vandalism in my post on your talk page. The other user may have tagged your edit as vandalism when you re-added it because your edit, on the surface, did give the appearance of vandalism (which is why I had to research it before reverting it). Does that help clear things up? Let me or one of our excellent Teahouse staff know if you have any more questions!  :) Thank you so much for reaching out to me! - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 03:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, ok, I see your point! That revert was totally my fault. See, I got rather mixed up (apparently I need a wikibreak! :P). I thought that you had added all of that business about Steve Jobs’ alternative name, etc and that I was removing it! That was completely my bad and I fully apologize (watch how fast I strike out my ‘MOS’ style warning on your page). Scratch my previous message above! Thanks for the catch! - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 03:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion declined: Mary Perkins (nurse)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello ZfJames, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mary Perkins (nurse), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: clearly claims coverage in multiple sources. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 06:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: After reading the sources, I was pretty fairly convinced that the sources only demonstrated incidental coverage (although there are about three sources, the nurse mentioned appears to be only mentioned as a historical footnote). Furthermore, the page creator seems to have made several pages (I tagged a total of two pages) of the same caliber all based around the same two or three sources with incidental mentions. If this page cannot be deleted on notability guidelines, then neither can any of the others; although it seems like this one has a clear issue with notability. Is the existence of someone's name (incidental coverage) in two or three sources sufficient to establish notability? - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think if you read some of the pages I mention at User:SoWhy/SDA), this will help you understand why the speedy deletion request was declined as A7 is not about notability, a common mistake made by editors who are not familiar with speedy deletion. Generally speaking, speedy deletion is only for clear-cut cases where further discussion is obviously unwarranted. This is usually not the case if the subject has received coverage in reliable source because then the question whether this is sufficient will have to be discussed. As mentioned, I'm happy to help if you have question on how speedy deletion works. If you plan to become active in deletion related discussions, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (which includes arguing based on other pages' existence). On a side note, the other deletion is unfortunate but incorrect as well and I will challenge Y about it. Regards SoWhy 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Got it! I definitely won't become involved in deletion discussions since I clearly don't see (still don't even after reading your helpful essay—you don't need to re-explain) what A7 is for. My rule of thumb is that I do not meddle in anything that I apparently do not understand after I have made a conscientious effort to understand it. This is why I haven't tried to patrol new pages.  ;) Thank you for your help! With your permission (please consider a reply), I will tag this discussion as 'closed' like the discussions above and preserve it from archiving like each of my other 'mistake discussions.' Thanks again!  :) - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 16:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't be desillusioned, it's not that hard. Reading those advice essays () certainly helps. A7 was created because people starting their own band or their own website used Wikipedia to generate publicity, you know, subjects that are clearly not fit for inclusion. "John Doe is the coolest guy in the world" or "John and the Does is a cool band from Garageville, MI that plays at Chuck's Place" are usual suspects for A7 deletions and should be. "John Doe was a Civil War soldier multiple historians wrote about" is usually not because when one historian does, chances are, others did as well. Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance sums it up pretty nicely. As a negative list, you can have a look at WP:CCSI where a number of claims of significance or importance are collected that usually are sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. In the end, I hope you will continue to patrol new pages, just remember to err on the side of caution. Speedy deletion is the first line of defense, not the last, and whenever you are uncertain, bringing something to WP:AFD instead does not really cause any harm. Feel free to tag this as you wish and as I said, you can come to my talk page any time you need some help with anything. Regards SoWhy 16:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for the encouragement (and the articles)! Those were really helpful! - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 17:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding your revert at Microsoft Windows version history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP you reverted was actually *undoing* a different IP's vandalism. I'm assuming this was a mistake on your part - I know that it might be easy to automatically conflate IPs with vandalism. Anyway, I'm not blaming you or anything, this is just a friendly reminder to try and pay a bit more attention to your reverts. Have a good one. --Sek-2 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sek-2: Whoops! I think I made the mistake of assuming that the edit I was reverting had added the vandalism rather than removing it. That was entirely my mistake! Thank you for catching it! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 13:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)