Talk:Dan Antonioli

Work needed

The article was kept on the AfD, I was one who voted to keep. However, as I said in the voting, this article needs a LOT of work. I'm not sure I understand the copious reference notes. That information needs to be incorporated into the body of the article. What I'm seeing is expansion of the reference notes instead. That isn't improving the article, since at present, the notes text greatly exceeds the text of the main body. Could someone possibly explain this to me? Wildhartlivie 02:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems

In checking the appropriateness of using large sections of "quote" in the references section of this and other articles, at the help desk and the citations talk page, several issues have been raised, the most important of which is copyright violations. Of the 4 sources cited in this article, three have explicit copyright notices posted on the same page. Copying and pasting complete opening paragraphs or complete bios is a copyright problem and needs to be removed to avoid legal issues with the copyright owners.

Feedback from the help desk also indicates that putting quotes in the references as this article has isn't what the quote function in the template is for, that it's redundant and unnecessary in most cases and a further comment was that featured articles (which is the goal for all articles on Wikipedia) do not use quotes in this manner.

I am broaching this matter here to start. I have tried not to be contentious. I have approached the matter in another article with the author to no avail, but this is an issue that really must be addressed. As I noted above on 23 October, this isn't improving the article. So much of the information in these references can and should be integrated into the article itself in a way that isn't blatantly copy/paste. Wildhartlivie 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The only time the display of a lede paragraph has been found to violate copyright was for Google in Belgium. In all other cases Google's right to display the lede paragraph of any news has been upheld by the courts as fair use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• As discussed elsewhere regarding the issue, the practice of including the relevant portions of a source within a reference is a model practice that should be encouraged and used more extensively by other editors. In addition to the cite template requesting the parameter, inclusion of the relevant cited text provides the clearest possible documentation of the statement being sourced, without requiring a reader to hunt through the source document. I have on many occasions tried to trace back a source from a reference, only to be forced to read through every sentence of the source document in its entirety, without any certainty of what material was being cited. For those sources that retain information for short periods of time online, especially some major newspapers, the cited text may be the only way most readers will ever see the source material. User:Wildhartlivie offers no reasonable explanation for why the practice should be prohibited other than the fact that he has decided that its use is unnecessary. See New York City for an example of a featured article that takes excellent advantage of this feature. Alansohn 04:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see the page regarding this issue where it was determined that copy and pasting two or three sentences, or entire paragraphs, within most references is the model. As I said, I have taken this question to both the help desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#Quotes_in_references and to the citations talk page Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references and received responses that directly contradict everything you've said above. You don't find this in journals except in extreme circumstances. Four years working as copy editor on the Journal of Sociology taught me that.

I have indeed offered reasoning for why the use of this sort of "quote" is inappropriate. I didn't say it should be prohibited, I said the manner in which these quotes are being used is not what is intended for the quote function. Using information from a source to craft new text is entirely different from pasting entire sections of a page into a citation template. Besides the fact that it's bulky, distracting, and excessive, very little of the information contained in them is being utilized. Those sections are copyrighted and the quote options are not being used in the manner they are intended. Please go read the responses I noted above. I didn't just up and decide it was unnecessary. I sought out opinions at two relevant resources within Wikipedia for opinions on this matter. The majority opinion seems to be that it's at least bordering on copyright infringement (this is not Google), that it's a rather backhanded attempt to host the article, and its unnecessary. That is why references have an "accessed on" date, to show when it was available, should it no longer be.

I did look at the New York City article. There are brief quotes in 4 references - out of 154. What I don't understand is why we are trying to preserve entire paragraphs from sources when its not being used to improve the article itself? Blocks of pasted text do not substitute for material in the article, although that's what we have here. Excessive amounts of pasted text well in excess of what it's supposed to be referencing. The sarcasm wasn't necessary on the citing sources page, possible copyright violations are an issue. I am trying to get an official response on this, it is an issue. Read the text below the window where you answer: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. In situ isn't possible if it's archived on Wikipedia, since in siturefers to it's original position. There's no guarantee the copied and pasted portions are correct without checking the reference. Wildhartlivie 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your claim is that this practice is not followed anywhere by anyone else. I simply picked one featured article that takes advantage of this model practice; there are many others. The question is whether or not its used, and it is. There seems to be no logic in limiting the citation of quotes to some arbitrary percentage of references. I can provide hundreds of other articles and point you to a multitude of books that utilize this common practice. The inclusion of brief quotes for the purpose of documenting a source does not violate any copyright in any way, shape or form, nor have you provided any support for this claim. While inclusion of quotes within a reference does not obviate the need to verify a reference back to its source, it does eliminate the guessing game required when no text is provided, one I have been forced to play many times by those many individuals who refuse to specify exactly what in their reference supports their claim. The use of in situ citations is an invaluable method that certainly does "improve the article" by bringing the reference into the article. As is customary, instead of trying to find consensus on how to use such citations, the only approach is to get rid of them. If you wish to find consensus on using sourced citations, you may want to build consensus on establishing guidelines for their use, rather than the disruptive shotgun approach of prohibiting what you just don't like. Alansohn 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what this is about, and I actually think you are doing so to cloud the issue. The reason one would offer brief quotes in a citation is to clarify a vague or difficult concept. It happens occasionally. I did not propose to limit it to a given percentage. You offered an article that you described as "excellent advantage of this feature." In your example, only a small number of references used the quote function. This article has complete paragraphs from articles arbitrarily pasted into the function and they are serving no purpose. Have you even read what is being offered in this article? The entire biography from a college website copied verbatim into the reference quote to verify the same exact phrasing (which is plagiarism as well) to establish he went to college and belongs to some organizations??? Why is that necessary?

I am questioning whether this is, indeed, a copyright violation in the way it's being used. I don't have to prove whether it is or not, I am seeking consensus on whether it is a violation, and you are deliberately trying to divert attention away from that by making it sound as if I'm simply being obstinate. It's not a matter of liking or not liking it. It's a matter of whether it's a legal use or not. And again, copy and pasting complete paragraphs of copyrighted material into a quote function is not in keeping with the purpose of a quote function. Further, it isn't even in situ, because this isn't the original site of the text. It's copied. It occurs to me that either you or the original author might take the energy you are spending on accusing me of being difficult to actually improve and incorporate the material into the article, instead of copy and pasting more information into a reference than the article itself contains. What's wrong with this picture? Wildhartlivie 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• The material is already incorporated into the article; the source supports it and the cited text documents what is being supported. Take a look at Manhattan, a Good Article, to see an article where several dozen sources include text from the cited reference, without "overwhelming" the reference section. I can provide you with hundreds more to document the practice you insists is unused in any other article. If you are making a claim of plagiarism, addressing it as an issue of text being included in sources is the wrong way to deal with it. If you're trying to make the claim that the practice should be eliminated, you don't have a leg to stand on. If you're trying to address some guidelines for its use, you haven't made any constructive suggestion as to how to do so. The quote parameter exists for a purpose, and this is it. Alansohn 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The material given in the references barely is covered in the article. Again you are skewing the point I am making. I am saying that presenting whole blocks of text, and in at least one case, the entire biography from the college, is not the intended use for a quote function. And again, I am not trying to eliminate the use of the quote, I am saying this practice as it is being utilized here, is not what a quote function is for. I have raised the issue because I believe it may be a copyright violation and am seeking consensus on whether other editors see it that way. Everything else you are throwing into this is a smokescreen. I only noted that there is plagiarism here because one phrase is being used verbatim from the copy and pasted text. Perhaps that should be addressed, but that is not the issue that I am bringing up for this. You can bring up all the examples in the world about the fact that sometimes quotes are given in references, but the ones you have offered do not use the quote function in the way it is being used here. Wildhartlivie 16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I am indeed following the guidelines for questioning the use of this content. I am currently seeking consensus from the Wikipedia resources that are concerned with this issue, as you are well aware. I am not going to continue to defend my good faith effort to seek an answer on the manner in which the quote function is being utilized here by participating in a give and take with you when you are ignoring the bottom line issue. No one on the pages I've asked has indicated they support the use of the quote function in this way, except for the two fellows from New Jersey, the original author and you. I will continue to pursue an answer regarding this manner of usage through the outlined Wikipedia channels, but I am not going to address every smokescreen you throw at it that doesn't involve the orginal issue. Wildhartlivie 16:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am rather disturbed by the need to disclose personal information to push your point. I guess this is what you mean by smokescreens. I further find it bizarre that alleged plagiarism in an article doesn't bother you, as it only seems to interfere with your crusade to eliminate use of quotations in references, a practice that is used in hundreds and thousands of articles. The bottom line issue is that the practice should be followed more widely; you have offered no guidance as to what distinguishes good quotes from bad quotes, nor how this would be relevant here. I couldn't care less where you live. If you are truly serious about the issue, it's time that you made a concrete suggestion and stopped using personal information to push your point. Alansohn 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you advertised your location on your userpage. You did that yourself, so it is not an issue of my having disclosed it or that you are trying to conceal it. I noted it because it is interesting as it could suggest that one or the other of you is a sock puppet of the other. Your smokescreen is your insistence on manipulating what I am asking on the help/citation talk pages. You good and well know what the issue is, and it is not a crusade to eliminate the use of the quote function altogether, but how this author is using it and by extension, how it's been used in a rash of other articles by him.

The issue of plagiarism is a concern, but it's secondary to the potential copyright violation that I am trying to investigate. The consensus of whether this particular type of use is appropriate or not will dictate the next step and then concrete suggestions would grow from that. There is a process herein on how to handle a dispute and I am following that. I tried discussing it with him and he rebuffed it outright. Now I've asked for comment from the appropriate resources in WP.

Since talking to you here is not going anywhere (deliberately skewing the issue I am trying to find consensus on - which is whether the use of copying & pasting of entire bios and paragraphs into an optional quote function of a template in the way that it is being used here is a violation of free-use and copyrights), perhaps this is better approached by taking it to WP:CP. Wildhartlivie 18:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you felt the need to investigate my user page and make judgments based on that information approaches harassment. That you felt the need to use that information as part of your decision-making process shows an extreme lack of judgment on your part that will not be further tolerated. Your sock puppetry charge is complete and total bullshit and further demonstrates the vacuity of your claims. Further attacks on your part will be treated with the appropriate severity. Alansohn 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note for clarification: Userpages are not private documents, they are available for anyone to see. There is no harassment, and all pages are open to inspection and editing on Wikipedia. I initiated this question and investigation before the above user entered the discussion, but since he has, any attempt to discuss the actual issue has been sidetracked and purposely diverted by him. Such a problem does indeed bear investigation. It is sometimes helpful to check a page to see what the pattern of editing and interest is to form an idea of what one is dealing with. In fact, WP:STALK states:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy...

I made no charge or attack in this situation, I only noted it was interesting that the two were so close and both were the only ones who seemed to support the extensive misuse of quotes. Such coincidences often do indicate sock puppetry. Whether or not I should have stated it is beside the point. Anyone is free to investigate. This user has continually made personal my good faith effort to obtain an answer and consensus on whether or not the quote function in a citation is misused or is a copyright violation when entire paragraphs and bios are copy and pasted into the reference. It was not and continues not to be a personal attack, but an attempt to clarify an issue which could effect liability for Wikipedia. I am at this point taking this to WP:CP as there is no merit in continuing to attempt to discuss this. Wildhartlivie 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't claim the information is not available on my userpage. I question your extreme lack of judgment in using it as an excuse to justify your disruptive actions. You know full well that your claims of sockpuppetry are as equally baseless and unjustifiable as your efforts to interfere with editing of this article. Your abuse of personal information only further proves the bad faith in your efforts. If you have any meaningful "good faith" suggestion to offer as to what it is that you will tolerate for inclusion in references, please present it to us once and for all. Alansohn 05:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The clear abuse of WP:CP here, when it is clear that the content is being used and properly attributed to support the statements and claims made in the article is continuing evidence of malice and bad faith on the part of User:Wildhartlivie. The clear false claim that there was "guidance" to blank the article is blatantly false and part of a continuing pattern of disruption. As asked above, User:Wildhartlivie has persistently refused to offer any explanation of what material is allowed under his selective misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy nor any valid explanation of why the quoted and properly attributed violates any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Alansohn 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After attempting to approach the original author about the use of large blocks of copy & pasted paragraphs & biographies into references to no avail, I posed the question to both the help desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#Quotes_in_references and to the citations talk page Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references and received almost universal comment from other editors who answered that this may be a copyright violation. Throughout that effort on this talk page, I was met with interference and an increasing escalation of argument which made it clear that what I was asking of the appropriate Wikipedia resources was being ignored by some posters on this page. When that became clear, I opted to pose the issue through WP:CP by reporting it there and allowing administration to make a decision on whether this is a copyright violation or not. I followed the very clear instructions on reporting a possible copyright violation at WP:CP#Instructions that is outlined under that policy. There is no malice, bad faith or disruption in trying to obtain a consensus on the practice of possible inappropriate use of quote functions or taking it to administration. The investigation into this and obtaining a definitive answer on the appropriateness of this type of usage of large blocks of material from outside sources was, and continues to be, the goal in bringing this up. It is not an issue of my making arbitrary determinations of what is allowable, but of what copyright and free-use consists. It is not now and was not a personal matter, but the direction the other poster continues to take this is the reason I have taken it to a higher authority to determine. Wildhartlivie 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point to your source for "almost universal comment" supporting your insistence that attributed use of sourced material in a reference constitutes a copyright infringement? Or this just some of your original research. Alansohn 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read through all of these pages and it's pretty obvious to me that you are pointedly refusing to acknowledge that this whole thing is an inquiry about whether or not this is a copyright violation. She didn't say the final answer is that it's a violation. The whole time, she's been asking the question "Is this the right way to use this?" and "Is this a violation?" Instead of looking at it impartially, you just keep throwing argumentative taunts at it, hoping to cloud the issue. Instead of being taunting and disparaging about it, why don't you take a step back and ask yourself why this is annoying you so much that you won't look at it dispassionately? Anyone can look at the two pages and see how many people said that it might a problem. At the citing sources page, 6 people answered her post - the two people who are arguing it on this page and then 4 others. Two of those said outright it looks like it's a violation, the other two at the least said that it isn't the right way to use the quotes. At the help desk, 3 people answered - you again, with your copy of what you said before, and the other 2 didn't seem to think it was the right use either. So yes, leaving you out of it, all of them were doubtful about how it's being used. You kept saying that it's the model for using quotes, but I sure didn't see you offering up any pages where the community decided it was the model when she asked you. It would really be nice if less people grasped every chance that comes along to be antagonistic and petulant about someone questioning the edits on here! AndToToToo 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• The feature is utilized in featured articles, in good articles and in thousands of other articles, as I have already provided in examples. The quote feature is built in to the Wikipedia-standard citation template, and other editors regularly take advantage of the function. There is no one claiming that an unlimited amount of content can be included within a reference and there is no justification offered under Wikipedia policy that forbids inclusion of properly attributed text within a reference. As described here and elsewhere, the inclusion of text pins down with certainty what content within the referenced text is being cited, without the need to hunt or guess, a function that cannot be served in any other manner. The question is how much may be included. User:Wildhartlivie has refused to make any constructive suggestion as to what he feels the limits are. All we have seen from him is the nuclear option of declaring the entire article a copyright violation, which is clearly false and intentionally disruptive. I am more than willing to reach consensus on use of this feature, but User:Wildhartlivie has refused to respond. Do you have any suggestion on the issue? Alansohn 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Received almost universal comment from other editors who answered that this may be a copyright violation

• In Wikipedia:Help_desk#Quotes_in_references, only one other person responded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eligible for WP:CSD#G12

I was asked to look at this article, and in my opinion it is a copyright infringement. The first version of this article has a quote from this URL, which clearly states, "...(it) is not to be reprinted in any publication... without the permission of the editor." Since there's no copyvio-free version of this article, it's eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12.

Even if it isn't a copyright infringement, as the article's creator claims, putting a large chunk of text into the citations and claiming fair use is not a good idea for several reasons:

• First, we're a free encyclopedia, and we use free content wherever possible. We delete hundreds of fair use images every day because we have a directive from the Wikimedia Foundation to remove as much fair use content as possible. The directive is not solely for images – it's for all non-free content, including text. There's more copyrighted text in this article than original prose. It flies in the face of our goal of free content.

• The Foundation directive states that use of non-free content "...should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." This biography doesn't fall into any of those limits, and it has not been demonstrated that any historically significant events are illustrated by the copyrighted material.

• Our non-free content policy clearly says that as few non-free content uses as possible are to be used. Non-free content is only used if it significantly contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject and if omission of the content would be detrimental to that understanding. The content of these citations is available at their URLs, and the Internet Archive can help if the URLs go missing.

Since I was asked to come take a look, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to delete it. The tag can be changed from {{copyvio}} to {{db-copyvio}} to put it into the CSD category. This talk page should stay for the new version of the article, but if it's deleted I or another admin can bring it back. I can also provide the text of the article, with the URLs but without the large quotes, if someone wants to work on it in their own user space. I'll be around for a while tonight. - KrakatoaKatie 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you understand the difference between reprinting an article, and quoting an article? From the above, I don't think you do. Every fact MUST be tied to a non Wikipedia source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, there is no explanation under what policy clearly-attributed material used to support a source is forbidden to be included, nor any explanation as to how much triggers the disruptive nuclear (or is it volcano) option of deleting an article for which consensus at AfD was clear that the article met all standards of notability. No one has ever argued that inclusion of one properly-attributed, quoted sentence violates any copyright issue; copying an entire book would probably be a copyright violation. There is some middle ground here that all those pushing to attack this article have persistently refused to address. If anyone can point to -- or discuss -- a standard as to what can be included, this issue can be addressed very quickly. It seems clear that the only intention is to save the article by destroying it, rather than any good faith effort to address any genuine issues. Alansohn 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• How anyone, let alone an admin, can claim that this article meets the criteria for WP:CSD#G12 is astounding. The G12 criteria states that the rule only applies for "Text pages that meet all of the following:... #2 There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." How anyone can claim that the G12 criteria are all met, when the only issue is the inclusion of properly-attributed, quoted text in references using the Wikipedia-standard citation template is a tremendous cause for concern. That an admin is unfamiliar with the rules he or she is claiming to enforce is all the more disturbing. Alansohn 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd go with Alansohn on this one. This is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. What I see is a model for how we should reference things. How can this be a copyright violation when we are *citing the source* and the article is not taking the language verbatim. The references are simply quoting the relevant sections. I've seen books do this many, many, many times. In fact, it's quite common for books to combine a reference list with a footnotes section. And this usually includes quotes from the source involved. How this can be seen as a copyvio is kind of amazing to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lede and abstract display vs copyright in the age of DMCA

The only time the display of a lede paragraph, or the abstract of a scholarly article, has been found to violate copyright was for Google in Belgium. In all other cases Google's right to display the lede paragraph, of any news has been upheld by the courts as fair use. And of course, all search engines perform the same function every nanosecond of webpage content. They display a full paragraph of the lede, or a few sentences around the search term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

From the copyright decisions that I've read in detail over the last few days, the issue of displaying the lead paragraph, or a thumbnail of an image, in a search engine has not been found to be the issue. The copyright violation occurs when the search engine or webpage hosts the material. Since Google frames the page which is in actuality loaded by the computer of user employing the search engine, Google has been able to avoid liability on this.

The issue here is, for copy & pasted paragraphs & full biographies into a reference, is that Wikipedia becomes the host for the material, and this example we are considering, material in excess of what is being used in the body of the article. And that, according to the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, is a copyright violation. There have been a whole passel of copyright issues here over improper use that I've come across while researching discussions on WP the last few days - in requests for comment, articles & images for deletion and copyright violations. This issue is representative of the same. Wildhartlivie 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there are potential copyright issues with anything. However there is absolutely no copyright issues whatsoever related to use of a properly-attributed quote used as a reference. None. As pointed out, it is rather laughable to claim that a court has decided this issue without even mentioning what case was involved, let alone providing a link to the case or (the gold standard) a quote from the ruling that supports your claim. Alansohn 01:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you feel obligated to be rude and condescending each time you respond, Alansohn? The tone of your comments, each time you have replied, is demeaning and belittling. You continue to disregard civility and attempt to divert discussions by focusing on and misconstruing minutia instead of the larger picture. I will not reply to your comments in any way shape or form from this point on. Wildhartlivie 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hit the cached button in Google and you will see that Google does host the material. Please don't cite the entire "Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals", just the case you are talking about. Never say its "in the Bible", cite a chapter and a verse. Here is a search I just performed: 'New York Times "John Gotti"' and here are the results: [1] You can see that Google makes use of a few sentences around the search term, and hosts a cached version of the webpage which reads: "This is G o o g l e's cache of ... as retrieved on Oct 23, 2007 07:18:07 GMT. G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web." Also note that I can quote the any text in the body of the article using blockquote so long as I cite it to a proper source. Here is the same search in Google News [2] . Here is the same in Google Books [3] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply making a general reference to the age of DMCA or inquiring whether something violates DMCA 'even though it has been upheld in every court except "Google vs Belgium"' avoids the varied specifics covered by that act and doesn't show me case specifics either. One of the cases I've read this week involved Google, which has been brought up in copyright discussions on more than one occasion, in some of which you were involved. In Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court declined Perfect 10's claim regarding copyright because Google does not store and host the pages which are referenced from a search. A snapshot is not hosting the material. A host of other cases back this issue to one degree or another. However, I don't plan to write a case summary or brief for you on this, despite Alansohn's desire that I do so. The consensus of the discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references was summed up fairly nicely by John Broughton:

Not that anyone's counting, but at this point Wildhartlivie, IvoShandor, Arnoutf, qp10qp, SallyScot, AndToToToo, CBM, Shirahadasha, and I have expressed opposition to the practice of putting chunks of text into footnotes, a practice that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and that is in no way the norm at Wikipedia. I think that's about as close to consensus as most discussions get, and I suggest that the practice stop.

Finally, whether it's a violation or not, even the admin that allowed you to remove the copyvio tag said what was in the references was too excessive and unnecessarily long and suggested you remove them - which is what happened to save the article from deletion. In any case, this issue will come up again and again with excessive use like this, as it had come up before this. Wildhartlivie 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, we get a long rambling screed claiming that not only does inclusion of any text in a reference constitute a copyright violation but that there is a whole list of individuals who support your extreme misinterpretation of the relevant issues. Despite all the foot stamping and breath holding, no reference to any case has been provided that would justify the absolutist standard of eliminating any direct quotations from inclusion in Wikipedia. Most disturbing is the claim that the individuals listed actually support your abusive position, when in fact what they say is that there might be a point where the amount quoted is excessive and might then raise potential copyright issues. Again, despite repeated requests to make any meaningful proposal as to what can be included, all we see is unrelated issues misconstrued in an attempt to support a nonviable position. The fact that there is agreement that the trimmed-down quotes in the current version of this article are acceptable, further demonstrates the fact that there is no consensus to support elimination of this model practice, which is used extensively in scholarly literature. Alansohn 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to editors reading the discussions concerning this issue: Consistently since this was raised, the above editor has misrepresented what is at issue. At no time has anyone embraced the viewpoint that the use of quotes be removed irrevocably or discontinued completely. The above editor has chosen to take this position in order to cloud the issue, and siderail the discussion, which was then, and continues to be whether the practice of copying & pasting in large portions of text that involves complete paragraphs and/or biographies from sources into a quote function in the reference template constitutes copyright violation or misuse of the template option. After discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references, the consensus was that the practice as it was used in this article, and by extension any article where similar use is employed, is excessive, could reflect copyright violations and should be discontinued. In addition to the consensus, two adminstrators reviewing the issue indicated their view was that excessive use of large blocks of text in such a fashion is, at the least, a copyright issue. Wildhartlivie 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let's define excessive, as I've asked several time before. One sentence is not excessive; 300 pages of text probably is. Do you have any suggestions? Alansohn 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

removal of quotes

I read the entire discussion of the use of quotes in references (although I was unable to read the material at the links, because the links no longer point to the discussions.) I'm entirely in agreement with User:Alansohn that quotes in references serve a useful purpose. While I think a good practice, when the source makes a relevant statement in a compelling way, is to include the quote in the main text of the article. However, doing that in all cases would be overwhelming, and often awkward, as the flow of text may support a point, but not exactly as it was written in the source. If the point is supported in a straightforward way, it isn't obvious why the quote is desired, but if the point is controversial, it may be helpful to include the relevant quote, particularly when quoting from a long page where indicating the precise source might otherwise be difficult. That has to be balanced against the copyright concern, so the use of material under copyright in references should comply with fair use and be kept to a minimum.

In general, fair use considerations suggest that the length of the quoted material should be short, both in absolute terms and in relative terms. In this article, the word count of the entire article is about 90 words, while there are 134 words of quoted material. Arguably short in an absolute sense, but clearly not in a relative sense. In addition, I don't see a single example where the quoted material serves to support the main text, much less situations where arguments of clarity, or entries of a controversial nature might weigh in support of the quoted material.

Accordingly, I have removed the gratuitous quotes.--SPhilbrickT 14:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Antonioli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607123039/http://www.theconcreteproducer.com:80/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1419&articleID=559492 to http://www.theconcreteproducer.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1419&articleID=559492

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)