| Revision as of 14:19, 26 November 2014 editFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,880 editsm →=Question 15: Typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:39, 26 November 2014 edit undoRazr Nation (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,892 edits →Question 15: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| You now state that "However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone.", which not only doesn't match your use of it in your RFA nomination, but also is ''not'' the way to deal with copyright violations. If you create an article where you afterwards realise that you are "unable to paraphrase the sources", you should have asked for its deletion yourself. The initial creation may have been nearly two years ago, but the result was here until today. ] (]) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | You now state that "However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone.", which not only doesn't match your use of it in your RFA nomination, but also is ''not'' the way to deal with copyright violations. If you create an article where you afterwards realise that you are "unable to paraphrase the sources", you should have asked for its deletion yourself. The initial creation may have been nearly two years ago, but the result was here until today. ] (]) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I respect your position with regards to the election, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that I "create copyright violations and lets them linger." Since this is a two-year old matter (in which several users weighted in and helped, and after which I learned and fixed my mistakes) I don't see why I should go back and discuss it once more. Most of my featured articles came after that embarassing event, and you can feel free to go and check them all. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' ]] 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:39, 26 November 2014
Hahc21
Comment
Just one comment, without having resaerch the candidate properly: he is writing superbly well. Wow. He makes native speakers look bad. :-) Tony (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Question 15
Thanks for your reply, Hahc21. Unfortunately, I can not support an ArbCom candidate who creates copyright violations and lets them linger (or worse, promotes them as GAs and uses them as evidence of their best work in their RFA attempt) even after the issues have been pointed out and you were clearly aware of them.
You now state that "However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone.", which not only doesn't match your use of it in your RFA nomination, but also is not the way to deal with copyright violations. If you create an article where you afterwards realise that you are "unable to paraphrase the sources", you should have asked for its deletion yourself. The initial creation may have been nearly two years ago, but the result was here until today. Fram (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I respect your position with regards to the election, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that I "create copyright violations and lets them linger." Since this is a two-year old matter (in which several users weighted in and helped, and after which I learned and fixed my mistakes) I don't see why I should go back and discuss it once more. Most of my featured articles came after that embarassing event, and you can feel free to go and check them all. → Call me Hahc21 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)