User talk:Darius Dhlomo

Boxing at the Pan American Games

Great work, much appriciated. Keep it up!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Pointers

Hi, when creating football player articles dates should be layed out in full text and not linked. Details can be found at WP:DATE. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Weightlifting vs. Olympic weightlifting

Hi, I see that you recently edited a few dozen pages that linked to Olympic weightlifting to Weightlifting. Weightlifting is a dab and Olympic weightlifting is actually the page for the sport (whether or not it takes place in the Olympics, which I agree makes no sense). I attempted to have Olympic weightlifting changed to Weightlifting (sport) here but consensus wasn't reached. Cheers. J04n(talk page) 10:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Puerto Ricans

Thank you for your additions, however the names of the boxers which you added have been removed because the rules of inclussion clearly states that "you "must" provide a reliable verifiable source which cites the person's notability otherwise the name will be removed." This is in accordanceto Wikipedia policy. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fansite and the names which you added lack notability and can not compare with Gomez, Benitez, Camacho and Cotto. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the athlete articles you just created! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Font size

Please stop using 110% font size for certain tables. The text looks worse, and there is no reason to make some content larger. Thank you — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hereby second Andrewsc's words. Yboy83 (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fredy Hernández

The article Fredy Hernández has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, specifically provision 2 which requires competition at highest amateur level of a sport which in the case of race walking would be the Olympic games.

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. RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Darius. I see you've been really busy making new articles! Congratulations, you've really got through a massive amount, and the nation/event categories are a very good idea. One thing though - can you try to add on the BIO and Athletics projects to the talk page on creation? All living biography articles need to be tagged and it would help to keep track of things athletics-wise too. Well done! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Darius Dhlomo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 237 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Keith Remfry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Kristy Kowal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Ageeth Boomgaardt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Eduard Thelen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Peter Trump - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Uli Vos - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Rainer Seifert - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Eckart Suhl - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Wolfgang Rott - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Ranjeev Deol - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Finnish athletes' biographies

In supplying biographical information for Finnish athletes, you've generally used this style:

This Finnish Athlete (born 29 February 1945 in Lapua, Länsi-Suomen) etc.

I would strongly recommend dropping any mention of the province. There are multiple reasons for this:

• The Finnish provinces no longer exist. They were abolished on January 1, 2010.
• In practically all cases, they didn't yet exist when the athlete was born. They were only instituted in 1997.
• Absolutely nobody in Finland ever identified a city by the province it was in. I know sports-reference does, but not anybody else, including 100% of the people concerned. The provinces just weren't worth mentioning in this context, even when they still existed.
• Plus the most common provinces of birth are Länsi-Suomen, Itä-Suomen and Etelä-Suomen which are all misspellings. Using them is like writing Some Body 'Buddy' Person (born 22 November 1963 in Dallas, of Texas).

Thanks. Sideways713 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

{{infobox swimmer}}

Hi Darius,

Sorry about not seeing your comment: it's usually best to leave comments on my talk page rather than my user page, as this alerts me to new messages. I can't see any problems with the medal display in the template in question: are you still having problems with it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yoav Bruck

The article Yoav Bruck has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP.

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. Unitasock (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Heike Drechsler

I undid your insertion of the Best Performance footer on this page because the footer provides no information. Instead it only links to the generic Heptathlon article where the succession is buried several sections deep. I'll look to see if you did this elsewhere, but it would be good if you cleaned up the other places you might have added such a poor footer.Trackinfo (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My you have been busy. I hope you did not damage other athlete category articles in the same way. As compared to the succession charts, these footers are terrible.Trackinfo (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit!

Do you know that this edit was wrong? It was Tonka, not Totka. Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy declined

I declined the speedy of Jessica Cross - 2000 Olympic Athlete. I se none of the speedy deletion criteria as applying. Take the matter to WP:RFD if you think fit. DES ^(talk) 16:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Achievements tables

Hi Darius! I've noticed you've been making edits to achievements tables such as this. I think this is a good improvement as the tables do look a bit squashed up and the space left on a new wide table is generally enough for a dangling infobox or image.

I was wondering if you think its a good idea to create a {{AchievementTable}} template which could transclude the table code? (i.e. class="wikitable" style=" text-align:center; font-size:95%;" width="75%"). I suggest this because table code can seem a little tricky at times but a simple, standardised template could give newer editors the confidence to put their own tables in.

I'd support a whole sale switch over to your new style regardless. The plain, small wikitable ones don't look too great, but I'd be especially glad to see the back of these outdated monstrosities!

Also, seeing as you've done a bunch of Pan American Games stuff: what is your opinion on this? Cheers, Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I found another instance when you replaced prose text with a table. Ridiculous. But it was back in 2007, I hope you're not still doing that though. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved conversation to the WikiProject if you wish to comment. Given that edit was years ago, I also presume that you don't make edits like this any more? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another bad table

[1]: Did you read that he did not really finish 13th in the competition? He finished 13th in the qualification. Same with this guy, and got knows how many others. You must really stop adding these ridiculous tables. Please. Geschichte (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tera Moody

Something weird with the table formatting of the achievements you added.. I don't know enough about wikitables to fix. Thanks --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another questionable change

So now you remove medal boxes? Where does it say that this is OK? I've never heard of it. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geschichte (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Darius. I see people are a little concerned about some of your edits. Overall, I think you're a really good editor and you've added a lot to the knowledge base. However, I think that you are misdirecting your efforts at times. To take one very recent example: on Vladimir Kanaykin you deleted some prose and replaced it with the same information in table format. I think most people are very happy to have tables of championship performances on athlete biographies, so your addition is a welcome one. However, by the same extent, people are also happy for that same information to be written in prose form too, so that shouldn't really have been deleted. You should keep in mind that it is possible to have fully fledged articles on little-known athletes, so I think it is worthwhile to leave even the most basic prose on stub articles rather than show information only in table form.

In terms of medal templates, I think on most articles there is a place for both of them. Firstly, on larger articles, an achievements table will come at the end while medal templates come at the top. I suppose you could consider these two things as parallels of the "lead" and "main article prose" ideas – I think Michael Johnson is a great example of this. Medal templates can highlight the most prominent medals of an athlete's career for a reader who wants a quick look at the topic. The achievement table, on the other hand, acts as a more exhaustive listing of the athlete's championships/Games career (including details on more minor competitions and performances), something enthusiasts or topic specialists will be interested in.

The difficulty to distinguish between the usage of the two only arises when an article is (a) very short and (b) when they both note the same events in an athlete's career (the vast majority of athletes will have competed at other competitions besides their medalling moments). In terms of these articles, perhaps it is best to "double up" with the medal templates and tables, leaving it open for later expansion. Both styles seem popular and I don't see why they can't find their own different, useful purposes.

I think taking this to the administrators' noticeboard is perhaps a little too much, but it is a clear indication that Geschichte and others are seriously concerned about your editing (which is difficult to assess without brief edit summaries or discussion). People do track changes in order to check that we are headed towards a good, common goal. One man's good idea is another one's bad idea – my recent conversations with User:Trackinfo about the List of world records in athletics article is a recent example of how clear edit summaries and differences of opinion can actually lead to overall improvements. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Achievements table (athletes)

Why for example "Gothenburg, Sweden" is better than "Gothenburg, Sweden" - Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball

I have seen some editions you have done to volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volley players with infobox and some addons? Let me know.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Hi, Darius. I wanted to let you know that I have placed {{disputed}} tags on the marathon ranking articles that you've created. See discussion at Talk:Marathon year rankings. There is nothing personal about this; I thought you might like to chime in to help fix what I perceive to be some errors. Location (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Mikeytees (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Celia Corres

The article Celia Corres has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, May 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elena Urkizu

The article Elena Urkizu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, June 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elisabeth Maragall

The article Elisabeth Maragall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, May 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francisco Caballer

The article Francisco Caballer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, May 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francisco Fábregas

The article Francisco Fábregas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, May 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jaime Zumalacárregui

The article Jaime Zumalacárregui has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, September 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of José Colomer

The article José Colomer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, February 2010

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of José García (field hockey)

The article José García (field hockey) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, September 2009

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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells

I've opened an ANI about the way this editor is spamming our talk pages with deletion warnings. He has no right to order us to flail about saving articles we spent a hard time creating. The articles will be sourced sensibly given time and the BLP issue eventually eliminated. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Linda Staudt

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Linda Staudt, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni/sportsHall.nsf/printerFriendlyView/7D087515C5E64A6C85256DFA0072B319. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Linda Staudt

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Linda Staudt, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/alumni/sportsHall.nsf/printerFriendlyView/7D087515C5E64A6C85256DFA0072B319, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Linda Staudt and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Linda Staudt, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Linda Staudt with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Linda Staudt. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Linda Staudt saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While not a word-for-word copy, the article is a close paraphrase and needs to be rewritten further (preferably from scratch) in order to avoid infringing copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron Tabb

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ron Tabb, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikirun.com/Ron_Tabb. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Ron Tabb

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Ron Tabb, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://wikirun.com/Ron_Tabb, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ron Tabb and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Ron Tabb, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Ron Tabb with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ron Tabb. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Ron Tabb saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics

I have nominated Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics, 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/Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics. 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. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hi Darius. Could you please refrain from copying material from other websites as this is against policy, infringes copyright, and undermines the general ethos of Wikipedia. This seems to have been a recent development. What's worse is that rather than accept that you copied the information from elsewhere, you reverted edits which highlighted this fact and continued regardless. If you aren't actually creating the material yourself then you have achieved nothing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it isn't a recent development as I just found Jerome Drayton which you largely copy/pasted from a Time to Run article in 2006. You can read why copying without permission is forbidden at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Have you any idea how many, or which, articles you have created in such a fashion? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 in X categories

Hi Darius, because I created Netherlands at the 2010 European Championships in Athletics I had it on my watchlist and saw your edit earlier, including those to the other nations at the European Championships. Now, in the Netherlands' case, I had actively not added the page to the category 2010 in the Netherlands because the event was staged in Spain and not in the Netherlands itself. Maybe I've missed something; but I can't find any other examples of this type of categorisation, so may I ask you why you added this as well as the others? Cheers! Jared Preston (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Darius; I'll write here rather than on my own userpage where you had attempted to reply to me. Thanks for your message – but I don't see how your examples answer my question other than to say that this method is also used on other articles. This seems as pointless to me as, say for example, having found Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, the plane crash in the Netherlands last year from Category:2009 in the Netherlands, by categorising it in Category:2009 in Turkey too, just because it was a Turkish plane. The plane crash happened in Amsterdam, not in Istanbul. What I'm trying to get at here is why should something that happened in Spain be categorised as something which happened in the Netherlands, when this is not the case? I don't know if you can answer me on this so I will try asking the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. All the best. Jared Preston (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sam Rukundo

A tag has been placed on Sam Rukundo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits

[2][3][4]

What was your reasoning for these edits? I've already undid these edits but if you did anymore like these, please revert them. Please get back to me about those edits, I'm very confused. Also, if your making such a major change like that, you should explain your edits. For example, "Removing the sport and country athlete competes for because ___."Philipmj24 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you feel you don't have to answer my question. ThanksPhilipmj24 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement investigations

I just keep finding more and more...As you are unwilling to give me a rough idea of the articles that you've inserted copied material into (or even acknowledge the problem), I'm going to open a copyright investigation into your editing. What a shame. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 22:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got the wrong guy, I guess. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm... No? Why are you trying to deny it when its so obvious for all to see? I've seen instances of you copying external sources verbatim ranging from November 2006 to June 2010. I haven't been seriously looking for them – these are just articles I happened to stumble across in my general editing. Given this, I have good cause to believe we have a potential wide-scale infringement here. If you have a good reason why you are copying such large amounts of people's work then I'd like to hear it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 22:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from other sources without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you believe this block is unjustified or if you are able to provide a credible assertion that you understand and intend to comply with these policies, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been notified of our copyright policies many times over the years, beginning with this in 2007 after you pasted the contents of [5] into the now deleted article Yolanda Hightower. Other notices include [6], here, here, here, and here. There have been others; as recently as July 27th of this year you were cautioned, with a block warning. Yet two days later you created Ron Tabb by pasting content from [7].

It seems that you are either unwilling or unable to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. Accordingly, I have blocked your account to protect the project from damage resulting from your actions.

If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to do a better job conveying an ability to abide by policy than "You've got the wrong guy, I guess." You will need to make quite clear that you understand that you cannot copy content from other pages onto Wikipedia. Moreover, you would be required as per policy to assist in cleaning up the copyright problems you have created. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darius Dhlomo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Understood the message. My apologizes. Willing to repair the "damage" caused. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Denial ... ignoring notices ... repeating offenses ... you have personally put the entire project at jeopardy. It does not take this long to "get it". Net negative to the project, and no real signs of remorse regarding that simple fact. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just looking at the dark side of life, Mr BWilkins? My track record doesn't seem to concern you. My apologizes don't seem to concern you. What does concern you? Just hang the f*** b***? Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Here's the funny thing: another admin was willing to unblock - and actually did unblock you momentarily, but then re-blocked you. As per WP:GAB you are allowed to make another unblock request as long as it covered the issues surrounding the block and the reasons why the first admin did not unblock you. The statement above probably spoiled it, then formulating it as a declined unblock request was forgery and did not help either. So please, do make another unblock request; honestly explain yourself; honestly show that you will not put the project at further legal risk; do not focus on others' actions, focus on your own. I will clearly not review a second request, but if you properly address the issues as above I will likely support an unblock. As a side note, please read WP:ARCHIVE - removing posts you don't like is not recommended, but archiving is - let me know if I can help set it up for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's quite funny indeed; I'm still thinking about the proposed "another unblock request". Dunno what to do actually; my first statement was quite clear and remorseful, I think. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

As the administrator who was going to unblock you, I'll say that I can completely understand BWilkins' hesitation. Your denial above is really not inspiring in terms of our ability to rely on you. However, if he agrees, I would myself give you a chance, again, with the understanding that as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations a condition of your unblocking is helping to clean up any problems you may have caused. Your contributions have been listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo. If you are willing to pitch in with evaluating these articles and help to tag those which have more than a couple of sentences of text added by you, that would go quite some way to demonstrating that you do have an interest in complying with our policies. An article like this is not going to be an issue; longer articles must be checked. This is going to be tedious work, but it has to be done by somebody; are you willing to sign on for it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darius Dhlomo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Once again: if I did violate the copyright rules then in a very very few cases, honestly: Ron Tabb, Linda Staudt, Jerome Drayton, not more. As I stated before: of course I am willing to repair "the damage" done, although that seems to haven happened already in the three cases I just mentioned. I realise you have to draw a line somewhere, and I fully agree the administrators do so (!), but blaming me for jeopardizing the entire project is a bit exaggerated, if I may say so. Also given the fact that I am a contributor for several years now and haven't had any complaints or what so ever, untill a couple of weeks ago. If Wikipedia is a passion, why should I risk exclusion? Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Decline reason:

You show no signs of accepting what you have done. No, it is more than those 3 cases. Yes, you have denied it. No, you did not have no "complaints" until a couple of weeks ago. You have removed copyright warnings and carried on rather than address the issues. You have placed a fake unblock reviewed template on this page. An unblock request has to show that you are willing to address the issues which led to blocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying you haven't had any complaints or whatsoever until a couple of weeks ago. As I linked above, your first complaint was in 2007: [8], just over three years ago. (Your next was in October of that year, and they continued from there.) At this point, I am revising my opinion on the advisability of unblocking you. It seems you are still denying the problem and your awareness of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there was one message about a copyright problem in 2006. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything, I just oppose the suggestion that I am jeopardizing the entire project, based on just a few - indeed condemnable (!) - cases. Your judgement is too harsh, I think. Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Perhaps you don't understand that any copyright violations, whether intentional or not, leave the Wikimedia Foundation, i.e. "the entire project", vulnerable to lawsuits from copyright holders. —DoRD (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure I do understand, more than I've could have dreamed, but I still oppose the suggestion that I intentionally violated the copyright rules. Then again: yes, looking back, I did made some stupid errors. Sorry for that, but I already stated that, so I'm repeating myself. I get the ugly feeling that some administrators are not willing to give me second chance, whatever my response is. If that's the case, please say so, then we've got it - finally - clear. Or do I really have to get on my knees, begging for mercy? Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

I think any unblock discusson needs to be taken to the community, and not just decided by a single admin. Darius Dhlomo has a very long history of not working in a collaborative manner. He has a grand total of 188 talk page edits out of over 163,500 total edits (that's 0.12%). Look through this history of this talk page and you'll see a long list of ignored comments from many other editors, on many different issues (not just copyright). He's certainly been a prolific editor in the past 5 years, but Wikipedia is not the place to do whatever you want, or to work independently in a vacuum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darius Dhlomo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Having been blocked for four days now it's no question that I am fully aware of the reason why there was put a block on my account. From that point of view the block is no longer necessary. Moreover, as I stated above, I am willing to review and clean up the copyright problems I might have created. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Decline reason:

I agree with what James has posted below, you seem more concerned with securing an unblock than with correcting your own problems. I think it is time for you to consider the standard offer for blocked users as your best route forward. Try contributing on another WMF site without adding copyrighted material and come back when you have succeeded at that for a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm verging on unblocking, but I'd like to understand something first. How will you avoid creating similar problems again? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Having learned my lesson now, for once and for all! It really won't happen again, I promise. You can rely on that. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

And what of the other issues? When I look at your talk page history, I see hundreds of messages over the past few years regarding questionable edits, with no response whatsoever (other than the occasional section or page blanking). As I stated above, I would not support any unblock without a community discussion that led to that decision. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The message is I have to be more cautious, not only regarding the copyright rules. The same counts for remarks made by other contributors. Darius Dhlomo (talk)

I'm not going to unblock you myself from this point because there are now other admins hanging about who can and will act as appropriate. But, in answering a point you made far above about admins being open to second chances, not only am I open to second chances, I had already unblocked you when BWilkins posted his decline. That was premature on my part; BWilkins was right. Your subsequent comments suggest that you did not at least then understand the seriousness of the situation. (I would still very much like to know what you meant when you said, "given the fact that I am a contributor for several years now and haven't had any complaints or what so ever, untill a couple of weeks ago", given that you have had warnings dating back to 2006.) Your behavior has already damaged the project in that (a) you've pasted content into articles that may have led and may still lead to legal difficulties for the WMF and our legitimate reusers and that (b) will now waste considerable volunteer time in reviewing and cleaning up. The danger of unblocking you prematurely is not insubstantial. As the Wikimedia Foundation is a U.S. entity and governed by U.S. law, we are required by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act to adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating the accounts of users who are repeat infringers.(17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A)) Reinstating your account puts the project in greater jeopardy if you return to the same behavior, because a court might perceive that we have not exercised diligence in our duty of care. You wouldn't have donated all the time you have if you didn't care about the project, so, please, don't fool around with this one. The actions of a single individual here are not likely to be significant enough to sink Wikipedia, but you're not only a single individual: you're part of a pattern, just like the rest of us. A handful of individuals behaving in the same way could be a different story. There's a really big picture here we have to keep in mind. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the big picture, believe me! The truth is I - wrongly - ignored earlier remarks. But it did happen unfortunately. I can't change the past. Looking back: nobody gave me a with a last warning for instance. That's no excuse, that's a fact. The investigation conducted by Sillyfolkboy resulted in a handfull of cases, not in wide-scale infringement as suspected. (If the block persist I am not able to repair the damage still there!) Moreover: I like to see myself as a dedicated contributor (check my record), not as a contributor with a hidden agenda who's main secret goal is to endanger the entire project. Once again, I really think the punishment is too harsh, having been blocked for over four days now. I've been remorseful, but still sentenced in some kind of a vacuum. Finally: if I didn't care about the project would I exchange so many arguments as I did the last couple of days? Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Did you honestly just suggest that you did not need to stop because you were never given a "last warning"? That's like being caught 3 times in 4 years stealing a single pen from work - would you be surprised if one day they just fired you, even if you never got a "final warning". Wise people act after the first warning; it should never have needed to end up in a block. Heck, we block people the very first time for significant copyright violations. Look, I am 100% WP:AGFing here - I do not believe that your goal was to intentionally put the project at risk by copyright violation. However, in ALL of the above, you yet to show us that you understand the absolute RISK of what you had done. You say you'll go back and fix it *yawn* - try explaining HOW you understand the risks in your own words. Blocks (especially this one) are not punishment: the goal was to protect the project by a) stopping the immediate/past behaviours to clean it up, and then prevent future issues by ensuring that you actually 100% fully understand the problem, so that we're 110% sure you will never ever do it again. When we see that, we'll unblock. The more excuses you throw out like above, the less likely this becomes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first question: No, that's not what I suggest => "That's no excuse, that's a fact", my comment said. I just note that there was never a last warning. That's all. Do you disagree? Yes, you are absolutely right: wise people act immediately, and I haven't. But excuses seem to annoy you, so I'll let them this time. I am surprised that you are not convinced yet that I "actually 100% fully understand the problem", and you still want me to explain "in my own words" that I understand the absolute RISK. Haven't I done so already? And if not: is it really worth a try, given the fact that you talk about "firing"? Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Can anyone please give me an indication whether there is a possibility that my block will be lifted, and when this might happen? Thanks, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Unfortunately almost every time you post you add more evidence that you have not taken on board the nature of the situation. You say that "nobody gave me a last warning" is not an excuse, but you cite the fact as though it were. You were given warnings: why does it matter that none of them said "this is your last warning"? You say "The investigation conducted by Sillyfolkboy resulted in a handful of cases, not in wide-scale infringement". Why does that matter? You knew the scale of what you had done: the fact that someone else failed to discover the full scale did not make it alright for you to carry on. Your whole attitude seems to be that it was OK to carry on as long as nobody produced an exact statement of how much you had done and told you that you had reached the end. Then you say "I really think the punishment is too harsh", but that is completely missing the point: it is not a punishment, but action to prevent further damage. And before you think of answering that you won't do any further damage, consider the following. You have introduced copyright infringements on a massive scale. Nobody knows how large a scale, but you have created 9666 articles that are still in existence, plus others that have been deleted. On the basis of the small sample that have been investigated it looks as though a significant number of them may contain copyright violations. If we consider every article you have edited, rather than just those you have created, the number is much larger. It is entirely possible that your first copyright infringements were made innocently through ignorance, but you have been informed of the problem several times, starting in 2006, so the overwhelming majority of your editing was done in the knowledge that there was a problem. I am perfectly sure that you sincerely see yourself as "a dedicated contributor", and that you do "care about the project". However, what matters is not how you see your actions, but what your actions really are. You have knowingly continued to violate copyright after you were informed that there was a problem, apparently taking the view that as long as nobody except yourself realised the scale on which you were doing it, and nobody gave you a final warning, you were getting away with it and it didn't matter. You have repeatedly denied what you did, or denied the scale of it. (For example "You've got the wrong guy, I guess", and, when it became clear that wouldn't wash, "in a very very few cases, honestly: Ron Tabb, Linda Staudt, Jerome Drayton, not more".) So, either you were lying, or you were telling the truth and genuinely didn't understand what you had done. In the first case I see no reason to trust your statements about your future behaviour, though it is possible that you will genuinely reform. The second case is worse, because if you don't understand then no matter how good your intentions you are likely to go wrong again. Apart from copyright issues, Andrwsc has also pointed out that you have a history of ignoring comments from other editors on many issues, and a lack of involvement in discussion, which casts doubt on your ability to edit cooperatively. Even in this discussion on your block, several of your earliest comments were dismissive, unconstructive, or uncivil, which again does not suggest the will or intention to edit cooperatively. Contrary to what you say, you have given no indication at all that you "actually 100% fully understand the problem". You say that you understand, but your comments read as though you actually don't. You say "Having been blocked for four days now it's no question that I am fully aware of the reason why there was put a block on my account. From that point of view the block is no longer necessary", but nothing you say indicates that you are fully aware of it. Remembering that a block is, as I said above, not a punishment, but a preventive action, the question is whether allowing you to go back to editing would probably be a net gain to the project. Unfortunately, taking into account all your comments on this page, I have to conclude that it probably wouldn't. My own inclination is to decline your current block request, but since one other administrator is "verging on unblocking" I will leave it open for now to allow more time for you indicate that I am wrong, or for others to contribute to the discussion. Perhaps you can write a statement that shows that you have an appreciation of the seriousness of what you have done (which is not the same as writing something which merely says that you have an appreciation of it). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear you are not willing to give me a second chance, which I can understand to a certain degree (the "You've got the wrong guy"-phrase was also not a smooth move). But then again: whatever I bring in since then is surrounded by massive suspicion from your point of view =>

• "Unfortunately almost every time you post you add more evidence that you have not taken on board the nature of the situation" => what kind of factual evidence?
• "You say that "nobody gave me a last warning" is not an excuse, but you cite the fact as though it were" => Maybe a last warning would finally waked me up? It's just a question, not an insult. Don't get me wrong. I already stated more than once I haven't been cautious, and made some stupid errors.
• "You have introduced copyright infringements on a massive scale" => Is that a fact or just your assumption?
• "You say that you understand, but your comments read as though you actually don't" => You can read whatever you are willing to read, and from my perspective you are reading my explanation(s) with very dark glasses, if I may say so.
• "nothing you say indicates that you are fully aware of it" => that's no argument, it's your gut feeling, which is fine, but please admit so. Do write "unfortunately", but do you really mean that?
• If the block is a preventive action it just might be a reason to give me the second chance, to prove I'm serious about the copyright matter! It's up to you and the other administrators.

Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Discussion at ANI

I have posted a discussion section to seek broader consensus about whether to unblock or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)