Ray Saintonge wrote:
First of all,
let me note that the current version is not the version
that had the copyvio problems.
What I saw (and Anthony too based on his comments) was indeed the
current version. It has essentially been there since Sept. 27.
No, Anthony misled you. The current version at the time I used this as
an example was first theorized by me to be a copyvio. Then it was
proven by Geni to be so, and those revisions were deleted.
If
anyone but Jimbo had written this way it would have been treated as
trolling.
Ray, I hope you will apologize to me for this remark. I was not
trolling, you misread the history, ok? The revisions which I speculated
to be copyvios were copyvios, and subsequently deleted it.
He even said, "(I would delete it now, but I
want people to
take a quick look at it first)", but the picture was already gone. It
was reloaded but not linked from the new article. The leader of
Wikipedia should know by now what kind of firestorm his comments can
raise when they are completely factual. So when he irresponsibly uses
data that was deleted more than a month ago as though it were still
current the results are bound to be chaotic.
I think you should also apologize to me for this. I said nothing
"irresponsibly".
Your comments about the former version make a lot of
sense, but the fact
remains that it was already deleted on or before Sept. 27.
No, that is not true. Please review the history again, and remember
that AGF applies even to me. :) I don't make up crazy irresponsible
examples. The bits I complained about were live on the site when I
complained about them.
Please acknowledge this.
--Jimbo