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