Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 9 August 2009

User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses

The substance of this page, which is transcluded into Jack Merridew's talk page, is comprised entirely of an extensive, multi-paragraph quotation from a copyrighted novel which is not believed to be available under a free license. Per WP:NFCC#9, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace, subject only to a few, narrowly drawn exemptions for situations in which characteristically encyclopedic material appears in userspace, such as drafts of articles intended to be transferred to the main namespace. As the non-free content present here is used solely for decorative purposes, no compelling justification for the contravention of WP:NFCC#9 has been supplied. Erik9 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close without prejudice. Many !voters may have been materially mislead by the many references to WP:NFCC#9, whose intro Misplaced Pages:NFCC#Policy applies criteria #1-10 only to "Other non-free content", not "verbatim textual excerpts". That intro also refers only to "verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles", not userspace. If the nominator is able to reformulate the nomination without an obvious material policy defect please refile as User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses 2. Milo 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So, um, under your construction of WP:NFCC, the policy is silent upon the question of non-free text in userspace, and permits users to have as much of it as they want? I do believe that the Wikimedia Foundation would disagree with your policy interpretation, insofar as one of the foundation's employees blocked Giano II and protected his talk page for posting non-free content on his user talk page during Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova. More importantly, however, your interpretation of the policy is clearly and directly at odds with its intent of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law" -- why on earth would the policy therefore say nothing whatsoever about non-free content in userspace, and therefore permit unlimited amounts of it? Erik9 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Save it for the debate. Do you challenge the facts of my motion? Milo 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "Other non-free content", interpreted in context and consistent with the clear intent of the policy to minimize the use of non-free content, especially for non-encyclopedic, userspace purposes, refers to non-free content other than "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author ", including text appearing in userspace. This construction of the policy is far more congruous with its purpose then the claim that "Other non-free content" is exclusive of text, thereby carving out a loophole which exempts non-article non-free content from any restriction by the WP:NFCC altogether. Erik9 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that repeated use WP:NFCC#9 in the nomination is an inapplicable and material policy defect? Milo 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 is quite applicable, as I explain in response to your query above. Erik9 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no reference to WP:NFCC#9 in your previous answer Erik9 (23:31). (I've taken the clerking liberty of moving your answer here since I was asking Hullaballoo in the other thread.) Milo 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's implicit. To clarify, insofar, as I explained above, "Other non-free content" refers to non-free content other than "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author ", including text appearing in userspace, text appearing in userspace is subject to the numerical non-free content criteria, at least to the extent applicable to textual content, including criterion 9, the letter of which flatly forbids the same. Now, the community may allow editors to have single-sentence quotations from non-free sources on their userpages, but Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of non-free copyrighted material on a user subpage is clearly not the sort of policy violation that we are prepared to countenance. Erik9 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the motion; that last sentence is nom debate.

Misplaced Pages:NFCC#Policy in intro entirety reads:

"Policy ¶ There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." (#1 through #10 follow)

Erik9 (23:54): "...text appearing in userspace is subject to the numerical non-free content criteria..." I see no #Policy rhetorical support for that position. #Policy describes "textual excerpts" and "Other non-free content". "all 10 of the following criteria" is subservient only to "Other non-free content". There is no mention of userspace at all. Milo 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, I strongly oppose any and all attempts to construe WP:NFCC in a manner manifestly contrary to its intent of non-free content limitation; claims that the policy permits unlimited usage of non-free content in userspace advanced through facile wordplay are simply legalistic quibbling far removed from the policy's purpose. Erik9 (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose motion. The policy phrase "other non-free content" refers, in context, to all non-free content except verbatim textual extracts used in articles, the more specific apposite subject/topic of the previous sentence. The policy needs to be interpreted under the general Wikimedia Foundation requirement that nonfree content be allowed under an "Exemption Doctrine Policy." If we read the policy in the way Milo suggests, there would be no policy governing non-free text use outside article space, which at least violates the spirit of the Foundation's resolution. As I discuss below, it would also mean that there is no exemption authorizing use of non-free text outside article space, so that the page would have to be deleted under non-negotiable Wikimedia Foundation policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that repeated use WP:NFCC#9 in the nomination is an inapplicable and material policy defect? Milo 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. See further comments below. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a motion to close and then restart, why not just let Erik9 reword the nom to reflect the matters he's conceded... I suggest a nom more along the lines of (putting words in Erik9's mouth here) " NFC explicitly prohibits nonfree material in other than articlespace. However, the community, as demonstrated by multiple examples easily obtained, has a widespread practice of not enforcing this for short, cited quotations from copyrighted material. This practice should not apply in this case, as Jack's quotation is longer than most" ... that's a nom that fits the facts on the ground a lot better than the current one, and moves this to a matter of opinion instead of bludgeoning each other via policy or dueling motions. As long as anyone asserts "all quotes are forbidden" I, and others, are going to point to the copious examples of them as an irrefutable counter argument. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What about all the !voters who believed what they read in the nom and moved on? This seems like fairly serious userspace precedent to let be mis!voted that way. Milo 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point but in the past we've usually relied on the closing admin to apply clue and factor that sort of thing in when they close. Or if not, it's taken to DRV... ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the nomination needs to be reworded, because it refers to the "fair use" claim made with regard to this article, rather than the "de minimis" rule for very brief quotations which arguably takes them out of the definition of non-free content (see my comments below). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The nomination uses "categorically forbidden" without acknowledging, as Erik9 has, below, that common practice is quite accepting of quotes in user space. Whether it accepts quotes this long is debatable, but that it accepts them is not debatable by anyone who's done some research on the matter. Which, by your admission, perhaps you have not? I went looking and found several in a very short search. Thus a reword is what's needed here so that the nomination isn't misleading about the actual facts on the ground. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per our policies on nonfree content. --NE2 18:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jeni 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - This is a quote, not an image. Accepted community practice for quotes is to allow them (there are thousands of examples) if attributed. I think an MfD is the wrong vehicle to change that practice, and suggest an RfC instead. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  PS: the assertion that the usage is "solely for decorative purposes" is not correct. The quote is being used for critical commentary on the project. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since what you assert is the "Accepted community practice for quotes" of non-free content in userspace has not been memorialized in Misplaced Pages policy (WP:NFCC#9, by its terms, applies to ALL "fair use" content), then perhaps you could provide evidence to support your claim regarding community practice. Erik9 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try looking yourself, it's not that hard. However I'm willing to spend a little time and in the 5 minutes I spent searching I found a quote from Jerry Springer: The Opera, clearly copyrighted, on the page of User:Jpgordon, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas (which may or may not be copyrighted) in the "everglades barnstar", which is on multiple user pages, a quote from Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, a copyrighted work, at User:SlimVirgin/quote, and multiple quotes on User:FayssalF's page (although clearly at least one is PD by now since it was said by Pliny the Elder). I think the onus is on you instead, to show that there has been consistent and concerted previous activity in the community to remove such quotes, because as I said, it's common practice. (I picked these people merely to illustrate how common it is, not to single any of them out because I think they've done nothing wrong) ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Other crap exists, so what? Jeni 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for examples of copyrighted quotations in user space to justify my claim it's a widespread practice. I spent a few minutes and found quite a few. How many would satisfy you that it is, indeed, a widespread practice? Your comment strikes me as a throwaway, not the sort of reasoned discourse that substantively contributes to the debate. The onus is on you to show that there have been significant numbers of deletions and that policy is enforced in this area, because I've shown it's not accepted common practice. Start an RfC to see if you can get it to be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, your examples of copyrighted quotations appearing in the userspace of respected editors are all of a single sentence, de minimis nature, and in no way suggest the propriety or community acceptance of extensive, multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content. Erik9 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As a percentage of the whole it still passes de minimis. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I use de minimis not solely in the context of United States copyright law, but also in the sense of being "such a small, trifling violation of WP:NFCC#9 that the community does not concern itself with it." You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the community is willing to extend this tolerance of single sentences to Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free content. Erik9 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no "critical commentary on the project" here, unless the use of any material to which some implicit analogy to Misplaced Pages practices may be inferred constitutes "critical commentary", though I hesitate to define the term with such breadth - "critical commentary", as we conventionally understand it, explicitly relates the non-free content to the subject of the "commentary". Erik9 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that none of the quotes I cite above has expository text explicitly making it critical commentary but any observer can see that the quotes are, in fact, used for critical commentary. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As explained below, however, implicit critical commentary on something other than the copyrighted work itself simply has no significance as a matter of United States' fair use law. Erik9 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but nevertheless it's accepted practice here. Perhaps that needs to be changed. If this MfD comes out resoundingly against retention, do you plan to spearhead an effort to review user pages, then? Perhaps we can get rid of Wikiquote (the entire project) while we're at it. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss Wikiquote, whose practices must be determined by their own policies regarding non-free content. We're primarily discussing whether the user subpage in question is acceptable under Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy. As explained above, you've (perhaps) established only that single-sentence quotations of copyrighted, non-free content are acceptable in non-encyclopedic userspace material despite technical violation of WP:NFCC#9, not that the community is also unwilling to enforce WP:NFCC#9 against multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content in non-encyclopedic userspace. Erik9 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"perhaps"? If we discount Jeni's one line comment, we are left with a discussion between you and I. Have I established it (the use of copyrighted quotations on user pages) to your satisfaction, or not? Let's resolve that first before we address size. If I have, I suggest you refactor your nomination to take your new view into account. If I haven't, how many examples do you need to satisfy you that it's accepted practice? ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this discussion should be confined to the matter at hand: whether Jack Merridew's multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted, non-free content in non-encyclopedic userspace is acceptable. As the community acceptance of single-sentence violations of WP:NFCC#9 is not directly at issue here, I am currently take no position on it per se. Instead, I am refuting your argument drawn from examples of single-sentence quotations by noting that, even assuming, in arguendo, that the community does accept single sentence violations of WP:NFCC#9, this certainly does not imply that the community is also willing to countenance the violation of this policy on an extensive, multi-paragraph basis. Erik9 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have limited time and I prefer to devote it to addressing points that still are in question. Do you consider "Per WP:NFCC#9, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace" in your nomination statement to be operative, or do you consider it refuted? The question admits of a yes or no answer. Please answer yes or no. Then, if you answer "yes, it's refuted", please refactor your nomination to reflect what you still consider to be operative so we can proceed. If your answer is "no, it's not" please specify if further counterexamples are needed, or what. I prefer to not spar about this, just answer the question. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Per WP:NFCC#9, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace" is still quite accurate because there's no doubt as to the meaning of the letter of the policy, only a dispute as to the extent to which the community is willing to accept technical violations. Since the extent of the violation is undoubtedly a relevant factor in making such a determination, I'd prefer not to answer essentially hypothetical questions about whether the community is willing to accept single-sentence violations when such acceptance, even if established, would not imply community approval of multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content in userspace, when not being used for the purpose of drafting encyclopedic content. Erik9 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you prefer not to answer, because answering weakens your case. But too bad. Your nomination makes a blanket statement that ALL such quotes need to be deleted on sight, based on policy (with the implication being that they typically have been in the past (which you haven't shown), or else that you are about to embark on a campaign of ensuring compliance, or else you've just nominated this to make a point, which I prefer not to assume is the case).

I've clearly shown that there are lots of such quotes (with the implication being that the community accepts at least some such quotes, an open question being the criteria of acceptance used). I assert that the sole remaining question here is whether this quote is too large for the community to accept, and I propose to find other examples of such large quotes, or to concede the point. But I'm not going to waste my time wikilawyering with you if you're not willing to explicitly concede that part of your initial nomination statement is inoperative. Instead I will rely on the good sense of the closing admin to find your argument specious in the face of common practice as I already amply demonstrated. You can avoid that outcome by actually answering, instead of dodging the question. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my statements. I never asserted that "ALL such quotes need to be deleted on sight, based on policy", only that "ALL such quotes" violate the policy, and this particular, multi-paragraph quotation of non-free content is a policy violation of sufficient magnitude as to warrant deletion. The dichotomy between policy and practice described in WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY needs to be recognized, of course, for this to make any sense :) Erik9 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. Please revise your nomination to reflect this new clarity of yours so that readers don't have to wade into a multipart back and forth to find it, (because it's highly relevant!) and I'll go digging for other counterexamples (or concede that this one is indeed too large to "get a pass from the community" as so many smaller ones do). If you have some other MfDs you are aware of, that establish precedent in this area, that might be helpful as well. I continue to suspect that perhaps an RfC to clarify community consensus on this entire issue might be in order at some point, though. (my point about WQ is that it's pretty much completely in contravention of foundation mandated policy, which I've never quite understood how they get away with, but that it shows that various communities do various things, regardless of policy, not that something needs to be done about it by you per se) ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "critical commentary", as a matter of United States' fair use law, is still more narrowly circumscribed: only "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself qualifies. From our article on Fair use:

When Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie," Mattel lost its claims of copyright and trademark infringement against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents. But when Jeff Koons tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph "Puppies" in his sculpture "String of Puppies" with the same parody defense, he lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but of society at large, which was deemed insufficiently justificatory.

Erik9 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not relying on "critical commentary" in the fair use meaning of commentary ABOUT the work (although it would be easy enough for Jack to rework his page to make it be such), merely refuting the assertion that the quote was "purely decorative". ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep- Retaliatory deletion request initiated by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in bad faith 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I think you have your facts a little wrong. --NE2 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I initiated this MFD discussion, based on my judgment, as an editor uninvolved in any preceding conflicts with Jack Merridew, that this massive use of non-free text in non-encyclopedic userspace is inconsistent with both the letter and and the intent of our non-free content policy, which seeks to minimize non-free content, especially when not used for any encyclopedic purposes. Whatever Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' intentions were in initially tagging the page for speedy deletion, they don't infect my subsequent MFD nomination. Erik9 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, no reason at this time to believe this is anything other than a good faith nom, and one that was made by a previously uninvolved party as a way to try to clarify the original question (HW's template placement assumed cut and dried, which it seems is not the case). ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response: The facts are that this is a forum shopping deletion request that was initiated by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in WFQ and already has a lengthy discussion on this subject, and so should be closed. Wolfowitz started this process because he had a fight with this editor in AfD. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. If something gets mentioned, and there is a question about it, the proper thing to do is use the proper path for discussing it. This page got a speedy, which was disputed... the proper next step was to do an MfD. So here we are. I think we may (as I have said before) want to see an RfC started on quotes but that's a different matter. What HW did or didn't do at WP:WQA has little bearing on resolving the substantive matter. I think Erik9's wrong in his view about deletion but I don't see where he did anything wrong in trying to get the matter resolved using proper channels. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Humoring disruptive requests from predatory editors, look at the guy's history, would seem to make the project worse, not better. It appears to me like the wrong person is the focus of the discussion. Just because a person could be viewed as being technically correct in action does not make the action justified or enforceable. But, I'm a new user so I don't know anything. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, this is not the place to discuss anyone's behavior... let's stick to whether this page needs to be deleted/modified/merged/kept or not. If you keep bringing up behavior, some may view it as disruptive. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm doubting the above IP user has read WP:SK, this discussion does not qualify for speedy keep. (That applies to Lar too) Jeni 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Now that we've got that bit of buro-triv well and truly taken care of, perhaps you'd address some of the substantive issues such as the question I asked you, above? ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, NFCC says "images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license". Although text is mentioned in passing, it doesn't say that text needs to comply with the criteria. I remember that someone posed that same query on the NFC talk page, which led us to clarify that. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP:NFCC#9 doesn't apply to text in userspace, then the portion of the policy which states that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." would seem relevant - and strongly seems to imply that even "brief verbatim textual excerpts" aren't acceptable on pages which aren't articles, as in userspace. Or do you claim that WP:NFCC is entirely silent upon this matter, and permits editors to have as much non-free text in their userspace as they want? We aren't here to wikilawyer the non-free content criteria, to advance a quibbling technical interpretation of the policy totally at odds with its very clear intent of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", especially in non-encyclopedic userspace content. Erik9 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither are we here to apply the most extreme interpretation to the many issues of copyright that require balancing tests. Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete but not because this "fails" NFC, but instead is unsupportable for use per our text content licenses (now WP:CC-BY-SA), particularly in userspace (we are not your webhost). Small segments of text from copyrighted works, attributed to that work and used in critical commentary context is appropriate - wholesale sections are not acceptable in the CC license. The issue of text vs image/audio/video recently came up at NFC (about 3-4 months ago) and it was noted that our text content is governed differently than the rich media content. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I read WP:CC-BY-SA but I couldn't find anything relating to "segments of text from copyrighted works". Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this is not " to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea (...)". It's a decorative sidebar on a user talkpage and the quote is far from brief. The policy doesn't have a lot to say about quotes because it's rarely an issue, but this clearly beyond both the letter and spirit of the policy. A one or two line inspirational quote on a userpage might not be a big deal but the sheer size of this quote push it well past what I would consider acceptable even in a main namespace article. --Sherool (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. First, because the excerpt violates the "Acceptable use/Text" portion of Misplaced Pages:NFC, which states without qualification that Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Second, because using such an excerpt outside article space violates WP:NFCC#9. Third, because, as Erik9 points out, because the quotation is not used for critical commentary regarding the original work, it probably fails the general "fair use" test, particularly since it is a direct quotation rather than a "transformational" use, as discussed in Fair use -- and that even if it meets the test in Misplaced Pages, it might easily for other downstream users, particularly for-profit repackagers. Fourth, because under the Wikimedia Foundation's policies and resolutions concerning the use of non-free material, non-free content may be used in the English-language Misplaced Pages only under an exemption policy (EDP) established by that Misplaced Pages. The interpretation of WP:NFCC#9 is disputed among users. But under either interpretion, there is no exemption created for the use of non-free textual quotations in userspace, so the page under discussion is not allowed. And, fifth, because as Sherool quite aptly points out, this quotation is so lengthy that it would fail the test even if it were in article space and addressed a relevant topic.

The question of very brief quotations in userspace raises different issues. Reading the Misplaced Pages article on Copyright infringement, it appears clear that "trivial" uses of copyrighted material, including very brief quotations of prose from copyrighted works, do not amount to copyright infringement, and therefore would not fall into the category of "non-free content," since the law(s) do not restrict their use. Whether all such quotations everywhere in userspace are OK under this principle is not necessary or appropriate to resolve this discussion, which deals with one of the largest, if not the largest, verbatim quotations of nonfree text on the English Misplaced Pages, and one of the few, if not the only, substantial quotation of nonfree content existing as a discrete, freestanding Misplaced Pages page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." "Extensive" is quantitatively undefined and therefore relative.

"violates WP:NFCC#9" ... "exemption policy (EDP) established by that Misplaced Pages" The Misplaced Pages EDP omitted inclusion of userspace for text quotations." See the bold text analysis in the top motion section.

"there is no exemption created for the use of non-free textual quotations in userspace" That which is not named or included by category is not regulated – in other words, a classic loophole.

"as Sherool quite aptly points out, this quotation is so lengthy..." Sherool offered a personal opinion (based on EDP-non-applicable article space rules?). Like "extensive", "lengthy" is quantitatively undefined and therefore relative. A bit like Justice Brennan who knew porn when he saw it, but couldn't define it.

"for-profit repackagers" Seriously? Who would buy repackaged userspace?? (As Seen On TV --> 100,000 WIKI BICKERINGS ON CDROM <-- Not Sold In Stores!) Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} .... can you please show your work. What other large quotes did you find, and how big were they? How many are there in total? Which ones have been deleted in the past? How do you know this one is "one of the largest, if not the largest" ???? Or is all that just your opinion? ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, it's my inference after reading thousands and thousands of articles over the last year +, as well as my prior experience here, where I worked mostly on FU/NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about userpages, not articles, so it doesn't matter how many thousands of articles you may have read. So I guess, then, you're acknowledging you are just asserting stuff about this page without having done any prior research on what common custom and community norms are in this area? ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A non-existence proof regarding extensive quotations of non-free content being considered acceptable on userpages is impossible; therefore the burden of proof necessarily shifts to you to establish, via suitable examples, that the community has countenanced such extensive presence of non-free content in userspace, despite such being contrary to the letter of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Foundation policy (which I highly doubt is even remotely possible.) Erik9 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered already, I provided examples of quotes of copyrighted material and said I can provide more if you are still disputing that it's common practice. Are you? (that's a yes or no question, which you have been asked before but didn't answer) Once you concede that most of your nomination argument doesn't square with accepted common practice for short quotes, I'll be happy to do some research about how long other quotes are and what community opinion is. But HW has asserted this is the longest quote, or close to the longest, in all of userspace. He needs to show his work to back that assertion (how many pages did he review? What other quotes did he find? and how long were they?), or say that it's merely unfounded opinion with no actual review of pages behind it. Which I think he already did, in so many words. (Reminder: I was talking to him... you have plenty of unanswered questions from me already in sections where I was talking to you... perhaps you can address some of those?) ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I should have been wikilawyerly precise, and said articles, user pages, talkpages, etc. I would add, as well, that under WP:CONSENSUS, copyright issues are not strictly determined by consensus/common practice/what have you. I'd also add that during my first round of editing here, it was very definitely common practice to use copyrighted magazine covers as general illustrations for articles, in violation of Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies, and the discussions then were equally nasty to some of the current ones regarding BLPs (another area where common custom varies greatly from policy). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So you think all quotes from copyrighted works on user pages should be deleted, then? Or is there a size cutoff below which you wouldn't take notice? Because if it's the former, I think there are quite a few of them that need to go. How many have you found so far, given that you've reviewed thousands of user pages per your corrected assertion? Again, I think an RfC to establish community thinking and consensus on this matter might be a good way forward... ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. If we are trying to remove excessive quotes, can we please start by disbanding Wikiquote??
  This page uses the theme of the book to spark thought about our own culture, and it has a "non-free use rationale" on the page. If anything, this quotation will encourage more people to buy the book! John Vandenberg 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues of what should or should not be present in Wikiquote are irrelevant to whether non-free content should be present on Misplaced Pages. That a purported fair-use rationale is included does not save an otherwise unacceptable use of non-free content; respect for commercial opportunities is only one component of fair use. Furthermore, your bare assertion that "this quotation will encourage more people to buy the book" is not dispositive regarding the matter; supporters of unauthorized Napster downloads unsuccessfully made the same assertion regarding CD sales :) Erik9 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Lar and John. Nothing to add to their rationales. UnitAnode 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per Masem's overlooked point. There are a lot of "But I like it!" rationales being danced out as keep votes here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  I can't find his point in WP:CC-BY-SA, but maybe he will source it. Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  CC-BY-SA assumes you are the creator of the entire work at hand. You cannot transform someone else's work that's by a more restrictive copyright license into CC-BY-SA. Now, CC-BY-SA does include a fair use provision, so that we can included limited portions of others works as per US Fair Use laws without dealing with that work's copyright issues. So no, wholesale sections of copyrighted text cannot be added to WP because it makes that page incompatible with CC-BY-SA. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — This page is primarily a critical commentary on Misplaced Pages culture. It's rather spot-on and I would encourage all to actually read it and not just count paragraphs. It amounts to a fraction of a percent of a 436 page work. If Margaret Atwood had written this is as sentence or two, I'd have used that (assuming it still had the same applicability). fyi, there's a follow-on work, The Year of the Flood, due out next month. I certainly agree with the comments by Larry and John, above. And Erick9 was certainly right that this was no speedy, although I don't agree with his rationale here. There certainly are a great many quotations being used in userspace and often in other spaces, such as Misplaced Pages. I'll be taking a look about to find some examples.
  @John; this is actually a minor thematic element of Oryx and Crake. The very next paragraph (following “the one where the Parthenon was decorated with cut-off heads was, for some reason, the worst.”) is:

  By unspoken consent they'd given up on Blood and Roses, which was fine with Crake because he was into something new — extincathon, Monitored by MaddAddam. Adam named the living animals, MaddAddam names the dead ones. Do you want to play? …

  Crake became "Grandmaster" and this is the underpinning of the core theme of the book.
  This page is essentially a copy of my original posting of it to my original talk page. It was later pasted into User:Davenbelle/sidebar. Note, also, that it was deleted once before (at my request) and later undeleted (also at my request); see: log and discussion.
  @all; thanks for the pageviews. Please ask yourselves; are you a “Rose player”? How many of our “articles” are about “Monuments to the soul's magnificence”? (And how many are about crap?;) We should, of course, also cover the “Massacres, genocides” (and not allow them to “vanish from history”). It would be wonderful if such things had not, in fact, occurred in human history, but they did, and still do. These “Blood items” are some of the more loathsome distinguishing characteristics of humanity. The are also gruesomely effective at accomplishing bloody minded goals. We are here to write an encyclopædia and by properly covering our appalling history, we can help discourage the repetition of such barbarity in the present and future and perhaps save some from ending up in mass graves.
  Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  (I guess this puts to bed the notion that I don't support the coverage of fiction on Misplaced Pages;)

References

1. Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, No. 01-56695, 9th Circuit, December 29, 2003: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/6205C146C29519CC88256E0B005D8100/$file/0156695.pdf
2. Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, 960 F.2d 301