User talk:Darius Dhlomo

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)

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)

We have a winner. This is a really obvious source but the site seems to have blocked search engine bots for these types of pages, making the task a little more difficult! The good news is that the information held there (as well as the Olympic reports) will provide us with fine, stable sources to begin original writing on the topics once the copies have been removed. SFB 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

That was the point of my request. —fetch·comms 21:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Checked 7001 to 7040 => Cathy Branta is a copyvio = http://www.wisconsintrackandfield.com/bios/cathybranta.html

Removed. —fetch·comms 21:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed Fabián Roncero, which is a cv of [6]. —fetch·comms 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And Núria Camón, which is a cv of [7]. I'm starting to wonder if you're really bothering to help. —fetch·comms 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Checked 7041 to 7080 => none

Checked 7081 to 7120 => none

I don't think this checking process can possibly be considered reliable no matter who does it. Darius, was every place you copied from online? Or did you also copy from print sources? We will never find those with searches. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were all online copies. Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an excerpt from this book contains the exact same sentence as this about sentence. That is a print source. Bejinhan talks 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that specific phrase is a copyvio???? Modesty should be my middle name by now, but this is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? Could it be the other way around: Amazon copying Wikipedia? Darius Dhlomo (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect what Bejinhan meant is that the book contains that statement, not Amazon. Anyway, a lot of the results in that table are formatted exactly the same as this web page, which is at the reference given in the article, though it misses out 1999 and 2000. It's not obvious where the table came from originally (perhaps there's a version that that was copied from, which had the missing years? Or, as it looks like that site might be a user-editable one, maybe it was originally copied from the Wikipedia article in the first place?) Anyway, I'm just wondering whether copying the specific formatting and wording of tables constitutes a copyright violation? (I know the data itself isn't copyrighted, but I don't know how copyright applies to formatting and wording). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like that table is fine - see Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo#Copyright question -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now here's something that is a bit strange: At that Amazon page, it says "Excerpt: Gil Cordovés Pérez (born March 14, 1965) is a retired male track and road cyclist from Cuba. ... More: http://booksllc.net/?id=24562044". And if you look at http://booksllc.net/?id=24562044, it redirects to... the very Wikipedia article were talking about, Gil Cordovés. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Books LLC is a publishing company which published printed books consisting of the text of Wikipedia articles. They definitely copied Wikipedia, not the other way round. Hut 8.5 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks for the explanation. Bejinhan talks 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fudge

Darius, I notice that Paula Fudge is a pretty recent article you made, containing info (Fudge's personal best marathon time) that doesn't appear to be in either of the cited references. Can you say where the info actually came from? The text of the article seems to partly follow a template (like Rocío Ríos, Regina Joyce, and some others), so it would be good to know the origin. Thanks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find Fudge's pr in the marathon at one of the cited references: http://www.gbrathletics.com/uk/windex.pdf Darius Dhlomo (talk)

Thanks. Yes I saw that pdf earlier but was trying to find the source of the phrasing, which recurs across several other articles. 75.62.3.153 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Life-ban

Everything I do or say is surrounded and attacked with so much anger and suspicion that it's far better for me (and for - the health of - all of you!) to quit with the Wikipedia-project. So if the administrators decide to ban me for life (which they might have done already), it's fine with me. But for the decisive burial once again: I did not intentionally violate the copyright rules, I've been terribly clumsy and just asked for a second chance to prove my good intentions. I have been willing to cooperate to limit the damage, and did several check-ups the last couple of days, but that still too is not appreciated as you can read in the lines above and on the admin pages. In all the condemnations there was just one comment, ironically enough written by one of my most critical followers Sillyfolkboy, which hit the button perfectly well: "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." That is the bottom line. It's like first-time offenders going to jail: first they stick to denial, after a few days they realise they made (a) horrible mistake(s). That's what happened. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk)

I hope you mean critical in the Greek sense more than the modern sense(?). If anything, I would recommend that you be unblocked and then you can help us root through your edits for the remaining copyright violations. I've made quite a bit of headway into the events articles but I believe quite a few biographies are yet to be found. Is there an administrator here who agrees with my suggestion? SFB/talk 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As a whole, I think you did good to Wikipedia. You just need to listen more and stop ignoring people. I really hope you learned something from all of this and I hope everything works out for you. Personally, I hope you do get unblocked.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been just too many copyvios that you can't have been clumsy for over two years. I'm sorry, but currently, the evidence we have now is contrary to what you have said. Perhaps far in the future, but that's for another discussion. —fetch·comms 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would support an indefinite ban in the aftermath of this sorry situation simply for wasting so much of the project's time and energy. When it becomes unfeasible to resolve a mess manually, it's just not worth allowing that risk again. The sheer number of copyright violations is absolutely astronomical. But more importantly, your attitude is very concerning. If you think this is merely "clumsy", then I can only shudder to think what another "clumsy" mistake is going to be like. --.:Alex:. 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has listed any idea for a lifetime ban. Indefinite is not infinite - it's until the project regains your trust. Every time you were shown an issue, you said it was not you. You then minimized what you had really done again and again. Even still, I cannot sense real remorse. You feel that something has been done to you. For that reason - and until you actually feel differently - I suggest you remain blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mean this as a pile-on, but I'm just trying to help explain why the community doesn't have trust here. The main reason, I think, is not so much the copyvios themselves (the scale of it does appear to be somewhat staggering, but perhaps we can accept that the attempts to update articles were well-meaning), but the constant denial and the fact that every apparent statement of contrition has been too little too late. It started with "No, I didn't do anything wrong", then progressed to "Oh, yes, but only those four articles", and then on to "No more than 15 articles at most" - being blatantly untruthful every time, as far more than 15 have already been uncovered, and the final number of copyvios could well be in the hundreds. What I'm seeing looks suspiciously like a "confess to a few and hope they don't find all the others" attempt. And then Darius' attempt to analyse all his articles hasn't gone very far and hasn't covered many that he added actual text to, and he's already missed some copyvios, so that really can't be trusted either. Essentially, at this point, I don't think anything he says can be trusted - and I'm trying to think that with the best assumption of good faith I can muster. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I, for one, would like an answer as to why you've been so dismissive to other editors? I'm still having trouble understanding how someone dedicated enough to Wikipedia as to have 150,000+ edits and so many articles created, could also be so isolationist and anti-social towards his fellow editors? Clearly there's no language barrier, and you seem to be intelligent enough, so why the cold shoulder? I would think that anyone genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia would not totally ignore such an important part of the Wikipedia experience... why are you here again? -- œ^™ 14:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, there is anger and suspicion. As someone who has expended a lot of time on this, and who is expecting to expend yet more, and suffer the onslaught of complaints that will result, I have been quite irritated by this whole affair. I had my eyes on rescuing Nephew and niece (AfD discussion), to turn it into a good stub about English kinship terminology, probably combining with aunt and uncle (no relation), given what a quick search for sources turned up that we could have, but as yet do not. But I am unable to give it my attention because of this.

  This is why I haven't come to your talk page to discuss this, and I'm not going to engage in discussion beyond this. I really think that, given my frame of mind, I'm not the right person to do so.

  But I add one qualifying note that might give a little heart given that it does come from someone in my frame of mind. We're not irritated because you acted in bad faith. That's not what this is about. I, for one, don't (yet) see any evidence in your edits that you intended anything other than to give the encyclopaedia factual and correct articles about sportspeople, sporting events, and so forth. But you did it entirely wrongly, just taking other people's (non-free-content) writing wholesale, shuffling it around a little bit, and submitting it as if it were your own. You did this for a number of years, and you haven't been particularly forthcoming in either acknowledging the problem or helping with specifics when asked, above, about whom you took the prose from.

  So this is about whether entrusting you with editing privileges again will cause further similar work for other people down the road, or will again put the project at risk from copyright violations. And, yes, this is in part also about how much help you would truly be toward rectifying this situation.

  The potential risk to the project is a very serious risk. This isn't revocation of editing privileges for uncollaborative behaviour, disruption, personal attacks, and suchlike, where the consequences are for the community rather than the encyclopaedia. This isn't even revocation of editing privileges for bad faith actions like vandalism, where the consequences are content damage. You have actually put the encyclopaedia project itself at risk. We pretty much have to take drastic action, because we cannot afford not to. Your actions have forced this. Regaining your editing privileges is not a simple matter in these circumstances. It's possible, and there's no dogmatic principle that you should be gone from the project forevermore. But it's going to be a steeper hill for you to climb than for most people who have lost their editing privileges. You have a lot of people to persuade, on a very serious matter that is an absolute no-no here. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G, I completely understand. Things have gone terribly wrong. I am to blame, and I am fully aware of that. I stated that before, over and over again. We'll see what happens in the forthcoming months. Still I'm glad with your statement saying you don't (yet) see any evidence in my edits that I intended to bring the whole project in jeopardy. On the contrary: I tried to lift the project adding accurate info, but unfortenately - in less than ten percent as it now seems - ignored the rules and the remarks made by other contributors. But do you agree things are getting a bit out of hand here when User:Bejinhan is blaming me for copyvioing one simple opening phrase of an article, as she did above? People being angry and suspicious, ok, I understand, but her comment leaves me to think that some are in for a witch-hunt here. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"I completely understand". No, you don't completely understand. You don't understand at all, or you do, but you know how nefarious the truth is, so you dare not share it.

It should be noted that User:OlEnglish inquired above, "I, for one, would like an answer as to why you've been so dismissive to other editors?", and you responded by... being dismissive! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess some new compassionate "friends" have arrived. Do you really care about my answers when you already made up your mind, above and below? If I didn't care, as you state, would I even bother coming back here nearly every day? I try to learn something here. You don't have to wash my ears furthermore. Would I cooperate in the check-ups (which I cancelled because of the ongoing anger and suspicion)? What about the vast majority of non-copyvio-edits in the last couple of years? Any thoughts about them? And regarding the question posed by User:OlEnglish: as I stated before the comment made by User:Sillyfolkboy earlier on did hit the button perfectly well, regardless what you might think, feel, sense, etc. If the administrators decide to ban me for life, which they might, then it had to be this way. I surely hope they look any further than you do and mr. User:Wlmg (below) does. Darius Dhlomo (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you indicate a lack of appreciation for how wrong plagiarizing is when you ask about the vast majority of your contributions that don't involve copyright violations. Those are totally besides the point. A columnist who has decades of Pulitzer Prize winning work is still fired for one act of plagiarizing. You're either playing dumb, or you're from another planet. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SORRY, but amongst all this I have to say that Darius has always been an extremely hard working editor who has dedicated a great deal of time to developing sports related articles on wikipedia. The vast majority of his contributions ARE NOT copy violations and are highly valuable as starter articles. Copywright is NOT acceptable but neither is banning this dedicated good faith editor for life over a few plagiarized articles. With all due respect born2cycle editing wikipedia is hardly the same as editing for a professional insitution, columnists are PAID editors who can easily be replaced with other accomplished editors. We are all VOLUNTEERS on wikipedia so replacing extremely productive editors that are capable of producing the same amount of work and have a passion is highly unlikely. I find your analogy about "firing" an editor for a single mistake absurd. Everybody makes mistakes, ooh Darius may have made 30 out of 165,000? I STRONGLY suggest that this block is lifted and that Darius be able to reusme his work/restart those articles identified as problematic. What I hate amongst all of this is way you people are treating Darius when he has literally worked his ass off for this site. The idea to ban him is based on nothing but maliciousness and paranoia rather than truly assessing the profound negative impact it would have on this site. Providing Darius admits his mistakes and fully accepts responsibility for making amends for his vios and DOES NOT continue to do so I urge that this block is lifted asap. What I suggest is that he is placed under admin scrunity for a set time period to ensure he does not continue to create vios. The copyvio CAN be easily fixed so what is the use in banning a good, hard working editors who made a few errors. I would sincerely hope that he has learned his lesson from this and to continue as normal. C'mon guys lets not get all anal over this. Stop grilling the guy and somebody do the decent thing and take his word for it that he is very sorry for his plagiarized and promises not to do it again. Plagiarism is a serious offence and is totally unacceptable for such an established editor to be creating copyvios as there is an element of trust in community. But I believe Darius had admitted his errors and has promised that this will not happen again. Everybody deserves a second chance. His comments "after a few days they realise they made (a) horrible mistake(s). That's what happened." would appear he acknolwedges his clumsiness and potentialyl what his vios could lead to. But right now nobody is suing wikipedia, there is no press field day over this and what shouldn't have happened can be sorted out. Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Serial plagiarizers must be banned for life

I just arrived here via the general notice on blanking articles. Had to see what that was about. Oh, my.

My view after reading this page is that Darius still doesn't get it, or he does and he doesn't care. Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to comply with WP:AGF, but Darius never-the-less cries "witch-hunt".

One thing that has not been mentioned is regardless of ignorance about Wikipedia rules, it's just wrong to plagiarize. Lacking the compunction that inherently prevents one from going to some online source and simply copy/pasting someone else's work into something as if he himself wrote it is not a characteristic any editor should have, and it would be irresponsible to allow someone like that to continue editing. This isn't about not giving second chances for making mistakes. It's about Wikipedia's self-preservation. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it he's what used to be called a sociopath. If he's going to behave this way there's a million other places online and off he can besides wikipedia. I am quite frankly surprised this matter isn't being dealt with more discretely. I mean suppose the mainstream media got a hold of this, and it grows into a flap painting wikipedia in a very bad light. Does the notice appear on all editors' pages or only those who have had contact with the affected articles? Banning him for life is absurd, and obviously impossible to implement. For all we know he has a dozen sockpuppets and is still editing. It's kinda like when you have a convicted serial killer, but he continues the game by revealing where his victims may or not be buried. My 2¢ . Wlmg (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Wlmg (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kicking a man when he's down and unable to really reply is pretty pathetic...although it sure is a sign of how p'd off people get by those who flaunt the policies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Darius has repeatedly apologised. Just give him another chance and stop blaming him for everything. I've seen many great contributions from him before and I want to see more from him in the future. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know he's still able to post to this talk page.

I don't understand the lack of outrage about even one incident of blatant plagiarism, let alone something on this scale. "Stop blaming him for everything"? Just who should be blamed for plagiarizing if not the plagiarizer? I don't think he's being blamed for anything but the plagiarizing he has done. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but comparing him to a manipulative serial killer does no one any good. Darius is a real person and not just some imaginary internet wikidemon. This has obviously been a dreadful experience for him. Unlike many others here, I was aware of Darius before this debacle and was aware of both his enthusiasm for editing and his genuine good work. There was no joy for me in instigating this investigation. People's energies would be better directed at the clean up effort, rather than what is essentially comparable to peering into a prisoner's locked cell to get a look at what all the fuss is about. SFB/talk 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this "enthusiasm for editing", I still (is it just me or..?) don't understand how he can reconcile that with this total apathy to interact with the community, or collaborate with other editors. Surely he understands that would help immensely with improving Wikipedia.. but it's as if his interests lie not in the overall betterment of Wikipedia but to satisfy some sort of compulsive obsession, only editing here to fulfill his own selfish purposes. How could this be a dreadful experience for him if his past behaviours show no regard for other editors anyway? It's only now that he's in hot water that he's decided to communicate, and I'm sorry for the psychoanalysis but it seems like he's just opening up for the sake of saving his ass. -- œ^™ 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it tells everyone about this, and for good reason, it's an important thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonez1113 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius, why did you lie? You said you only had plagiarism in "a few" articles you created, when it's completely clear at your user edits investigation page for copyright violations that it was actually, according to what's listed, just "a few" articles you created in which you did not paste in information from copyrighted sources. You're acting just like John Edwards. First you deny a wrongdoing, then later you admit to it, and then you go through the same process all over again for more accusations against you. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a waste of keystrokes. There is no point gathering at the jail cell to shout condemnations or apologies. The facts speak for themselves. I know how everyone feels. I feel the same. I respectfully direct your energies to this useful outlet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the wisest post on this entire page. Additional shots or abuse directed at the editor in this manner will be poorly received. Go use your energy fixing the issue, not screaming in the streets. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Once again people are grossly overreacting. Darius between you and me on a personal level seeing a hard working consistent editor who is pasisonate as a site developer forced out over a few mistakes is heart breaking. Give the guy some respect for his work on here and allow him to address his identified errors. Seriously get a grip folks. All the best Darius. Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am almost as befuddled by comments like this as I am by the behavior of Darius.

Plagiarism is a deliberate and almost certain malicious act, not a mistake. The only alternative explanation is a highly unlikely extreme lack of intelligence bordering on imbecile. "Don't copy" is one of those things we're all supposed to have learned in Kindergarten. These are not personal attacks, but objective statements of fact about plagiarism.

To refer to these actions as mere "mistakes" is suspect in and of itself. Any honest Wikipedia editor would naturally be totally outraged by blatant acts of plagiarism. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm confused, is it normal to have an editor so passionate about developing this site for so many years yet not take the time to respond to messages on his talk page? This isn't an attack, I'm just honestly confused. Maybe I'm just overanalyzing this too much. Nevermind. -- œ^™ 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not overanalyzing. I think what we have here is the most pernicious kind of vandalizing. As you can see, it's so subtle many have not yet recognized it for what it is. And the general lack of response from the accused, and the content of his few responses so far, are completely consistent with how a malicious vandal would respond in this kind of situation, and not all consistent with an honest editor who made a few inadvertent honest mistakes. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that somebody like Darius who has been a dediciated site developer for many years is really a "malicious vandal" and then he has been intentionally "malicious" with his editing? I find that an extreme claim. No plagiarism is foolish and unacceptable for an experienced editor on here but I honestly think it was done in good faith and that with the benefit of hindsight Darius is really now thinking "what on earth was I thinking". No there is no excuse for copyvios but everybody is capable of making clumsy errors. But tell me this, what would Darius have to gain inserting copied material into his articles? WP:AGF... Very disappointing though it has to be said... I don't know what he was thinking but I don't think he was intentionally disrupting... Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not familiar with Darius or his "work" until this issue came to light, so I'm more objective than someone who arrives here with a non-neutral POV about him.

What I am familiar with is the notion that copying someone else's words and pasting them into something else, without quotes and citation, is plagiarism, plain and simple.

This is not a "clumsy error". This is not a case of "what on earth was I thinking". Nobody capable of figuring how to edit Wikipedia can be that vacuous.

Follow the dots. Logic leads to only one conclusion, regardless of what assumptions are made about good faith or not.

What would he have to gain, you ask? The same thing all vandals (and trolls for that matter) have to gain - to see others react to what they've done, only this guy has to have set some kind of record. He has been building this up for years. What was he thinking? He knows exactly what he was thinking. Look at his words here. He couldn't care less. He must be laughing his pathetic head off, because causing this kind of chaos is exactly what he worked for all these years. His sick prank went off way better than he had hoped, because he got away with it for much longer and in many more articles than he could have ever possibly hoped to accomplish. Wake up. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As to the very disappointing link, what is that supposed to show? You're an apologist for Darius and you think this is a good example of his "work"? This might be even worse than anyone is thinking.

With phrases like this...

• "he had the potential to continue the glorious history of Italian walking events"
• "This was a glorious chapter in the history of Italian athletics which also celebrated... "
• "Italian fans witnessed one of the most fabulous days in Damilano's career seven years later ..."

...it looks very much like something translated from Italian. It's certainly not NPOV writing by a native English speaker. I wonder how much of the cleanup process is looking for copyvios from other languages? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are NO citations for any of that text! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I wonder why you even bring that up. In the history of that article it indicates that that text was lifted from here. What was he thinking? What are you thinking? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

high five

Good job, brother. I salute you. :D 128.187.0.182 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

LOLZ You are an inspiration to us all. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.47.130 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Grow up. Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)