User talk:Darius Dhlomo
 |
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks) |
 |
Please see the Signpost article, talk page protection notice, block log, and the last revision before the blanking, for block context. |
Darius Dhlomo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.
| Enough. HeyMid (contribs) 16:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
|
-I have been led to this page because I found an article which was marked as CopyVio and it was not. Reinstate this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
-"among hundreds, perhaps thousands" - if the only one I checked was tagged incorrectly how many others were tagged incorrectly? Hundreds, perhaps thousands? By your own admission you do not know. -What is the percentage of articles this editor has been involved that have issues? Where is the list of the article that have been tagged or have issued confirmed. To me it looks like a witch hunt against an editor that is a positive contributor. Why can the editor not be educated about his errors instead of being banished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
-Second reply. I think you are mixing up Wladimir Sidorenko with his brother, Valeriy Sydorenko. I have also checked the link you provided and that looks like a Wiki copy and the website dates from a time after the the article was created. How many times has this been the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 December 2010
-bwilkins, I have had a look at both and I am no wiser. Nor do I believe it answers the questions I have asked about the above articles. Maybe you could help me, maybe you are not interested. Maybe you guys have made your mind up about this guy. I am not here to make enemies or cause trouble. My opinion stems from the fact that I recognise this editors name from articles I read and I was surprised to see this major issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
-You know more than me, but I find it strange that you seem to want to condemn this editor rather than save and educate him. I am sure you know better than me why that is etc but it seems unfair to me. These issues are fixable. The best person to fix them is Dariuz. Why not give him the chance to action these mistakes. I do not want to casue waves but I have found the responses wholly unsatisfactory. It looks to me that he did not realise the seriousness of his actions but now does. In his above post he said "I did learn my lesson after this block (and reading the rage-and-anger-comments posted earlier on). Caution will be my second name." Surely he can be educated and become productive. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
-I have seen some of this but I have also seen that this editor has now taken responsibility for his actions and acknowledges the gravity of the issues at hand and has promised that they will alter their approach to editing. Given his previous impeccable record over a number of years I think he should be given a chance to proven that he has learned for the experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
-OK right, so now I am him. Sounds like you are a bit too biased and involved to be judge and jury with this guy. I will leave it at that, but good luck to the guy. Just my opinion of course. Ta ra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
[edit] Usernames
Also, if this user is at some point unblocked, I feel that he should change his username so as to avoid confusion with Darius Dhlomo, who is much too busy performing to edit Wikipedia. DS (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of Kim Buker
The article Kim Buker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not individually notable, also unable to verify majority of content (other than that she exists and played field hockey)
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Milowent • talkblp-r 12:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know this editor is blocked, but I expect enough people have this page watchlisted that if anyone cares to double check this prod, they will. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.
For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
