User talk:Darius Dhlomo

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 [1] into the now deleted article Yolanda Hightower. Other notices include [2], 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 [3].

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: [4], 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. You 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)

I have some questions.

• Do you see why this is such an issue (introducing copyrighted material)?
• Why did you keep adding copyrighted material after the first few notices (which make clear the issues)?
• How many articles, do you think, that you have introduced copyrighted material to (be honest here, it will really help the clean up)?

Thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Answers:

• Yes, I do, I ignored the basic rules and, moreover, I ignored a lot of the comments made by my fellow contributors
• I tried to repair some of the data after the (first) remarks, but it proved not to be good enough (=rewriting), it just now appears after being blocked. No last warning, but the whole history bouncing back. Answering your question: the warnings were, looking back, not harsh enough and I thought: I'm doing a fine job. Wrong judgement!
• No more than fifteen

Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

The above is quite a disappointing answer. The CPI has already identified up to 30 copyvio's. Every time we find more you seem to just up your estimate to "no more than [whatever number you are up to plus a couple more]". I appreciate you might not be entirely aware of the number but this is clearly a common and deliberate way in which you create articles and, so, I feel like you are trying to be obscure in admitting to the scale of this. As to the warnings; you recieved all manner of copyvio warnings dating back to months ago - where the explicit policy of "do not copy/paste or close rewrite" material was extremely clear. I am confused as to why you continued after this point in believing that what you were doing was ok, or a minor issue. After so long on the project you surely must have known that it was against the rules! As to warnings not being harsh enough - that is a poor excuse and even more disappointing. I just can't see in any of this that you understand or accept the gravity of the damage caused! Instead you seem to be suggesting that it is the fault of the community for not noticing sooner and giving you a final warning :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Ok, thanks. We'll see what happens there. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't really believe that things have turned out this way. To be honest, I cannot believe that you are a native English speaker as my presumption from your editing was that you did not feel confident enough language-wise to reply. I somewhat doubt that you've done "no more than fifteen" copyright violations. If that were the case then we would have pretty much found them all already. I think your actual knowledge of the situation is "likely less than a hundred but really not much of a clue". I forget about articles I've created myself after four months, let alone four years. I can't help but think that things would have been much more straight forward had you replied to my first few messages. Hindsight is an annoying thing.

I really do hope to see you back editing as you have done so much legitimate work, especially in terms of athletics and Games articles. Still, your air quotes around "the damage" (twice) leaves me quite surprised how reticent you are to accept this is a problem. You have not only failed to inspire others that you wish to address the problem and stop such edits, but from what I've read here people seem worried that you will continue to copy others' work. Personally, I think that outcome is not likely, but I can see why people have construed your responses in such a way.

I can understand that some editors are less chatty than others, but I would suggest that in future you reply to people's concerns. Andrwsc pointed out that you have made 188 talk page edits over a career of 163,500 edits. However, both you and I know that pretty much all of those edits are a result of moving pages, and not of talking to others. Wikipedia is a collaborative place. I don't expect you to pop up at my talk page for a random chat, but it would make lives easier is you responded to people's questions and comments. I remember that your stonewalling of User:Geschichte a few months back left him infuriated for very little reason.

Do you think what I'm saying is reasonable? If you disagree then feel free to tell me why. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think what you say is reasonable indeed. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Any idea where the information for this article come from? I'm having no luck on the IAAF or European Athletics sites. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Main source: http://www.todor66.com/athletics/europe/2006/Men_Javelin_Throw.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darius Dhlomo (talk • contribs)

Bare results aren't subject to copyright so you are clear on that front. I've found the original source for that prose now. Can you remember what sources you used for the Athletics at the 1980 Summer Olympics/Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics? They look like they have a similar style and may share a common source. Wording such as below from here suggest an journalist's retrospective report:

• Choosing a favorite was quite impossible and the winner of the event was a complete unknown in Viktor Markin of the host nation. His only other significant international accomplishment would be a bronze at the 1982 European Championship.

Any ideas? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, not a clue. Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Step up to the plate

If you actually are serious about wanting to be unblocked, then you are going to have to do more than one-sentence replies to specific queries from people trying to clean up the horrific mess you have splattered all over Wikipedia. You can start by visiting Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Darius_Dhlomo and start going through your contributions, identifying which ones you lifted text for, and identifying the source you lifted the text from. In other words, don't wait for others to figure out which ones you plagiarized, but aggressively identify them yourself.

You can put the results here on your talk page.

Are you willing to do this, or do you intend to just stand around while others try to pick up after you?

For the record, my personal recommendation, assuming you don't step up to the plate and take some ownership of this mess, is going to be that all articles you created be mass-deleted, and we let the community recreate them from scratch if they care to. Nandesuka (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Already checked 8021 to 8060: none. Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Checked 8061 to 8240 => Andrew Sewnauth - uncertain; suggest: delete

Checked 8241 to 8300 => none

Checked 8301 to 8360 => none

The first one I picked in 8021-8040 was a copyvio. Tom Graham (volleyball) from here [5] bleh, sorry I got the dates mixed up :) it was a copy from WP to there. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought you were; I'm not responsible for violations done by others!!!?? => Revision as of 05:38, 17 December 2007 by user:90walls

Checked 8361 to 8440 => none

Checked 8441 to 8500 => none

Checked 8501 to 8560 => none (but vandalism detected in Juan Ríos; not done by me!)

Checked 8561 to 8620 => none

Checked 8621 to 8660 => none

Checked 8661 to 8720 => none

Checked 8721 to 8780 => none

Checked 8781 to 8880 => none

Checked 8881 to 8940 => none

Checked 8941 to 9000 => none

Checked 8001 to 8020 => none

Checked 9001 to 9060 => none (but mr. Gary Vandermeulen seems to have written his own profile..)

Checked 9061 to 9100 => none

Checked 9101 to 9140 => none Norman Hughes - uncertain; suggest: delete

Checked 9141 to 9180 => none

Checked 9181 to 9240 => none

Checked 9241 to 9300 => none

Checked 9301 to 9360 => none (but vandalism detected in Scott Smith (field hockey) )

Checked 9361 to 9400 => none

Checked 9401 to 9480 => none

Checked 9481 to 9540 => none (Leslie Lyness fixed)

Checked 9541 to 9600 => none

Check this page, please. I will be checking them too. You're currently looking over the ones that don't have copyvios in them because you only changed tables or categories. —fetch·comms 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. For the record: the ones listed above are mainly articles I started. Darius Dhlomo (talk)