On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote:
It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in this article under the circumstances.
It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious copyright violation, nor can I find a place where you pointed out one? Where was that established?
-- Coren / Marc