Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 21 January 2010

User:Neptunerover/Bertrand Russell on Common Sense

This page appears to consist almost entirely of unacceptable and unmitigated copyright violations. The vast, vast majority of text on the page is direct and extended quotation from the works of Bertrand Russel, and would thus appear to directly violate Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Text 2. The fact that the user intends this to one day move into article-space makes no difference, and I don't imagine it would have a place in the article which is suggested as its potential home (WP:UNDUE). ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - They seem reasonable quotes (well below fair use length I'd say) and the page has (at least apparently) an explicit encyclopedia-building purpose. --Cyclopia 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  Inserting hundreds of words of direct quotation from one philosopher into a general article is unlikely to be appropriate. I also suggest that the extracts are excessively long! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• UNDUE concerns I share, but they are to be discussed if and when the user will try to insert such quotes in the abovementioned article -and in the article talk page. It has nothing to do with MfD. You "suggest" that the extracts are excessively long: prove it. We have lots of quotes of similar size all around WP, I'd say they're well within fair use. --Cyclopia 14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Does not even reach any fair use issues. Clearly aimed at being useful to the project. And subsections of articles which deal specifically with one author tend, for some odd reason, to mainly have quotes from that author <g>. Since the subsection specifies Bertrand Russell, if the quotes were from aristotle, I would be substantially surprised. Collect (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons given above. It is perfectly reasonable to keep some long quotes and to work out later how to use them appropriately in an article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment, Bduke points out the very reason why I have anything "extensive" from outside writings on the page in question--so I don't have to keep looking it up in the books. I don't even have to keep the books on hand. --Neptunerover (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks TreasuryTag may be overly concerned with a particular user, I point out another recent MFD. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment, This is not a completely random attack on Neptunerover. This file was part of a set of files, some of which were undeniably complete nonsense and have already been deleted through the MfD process. APL (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment, I agree with APL in that this attack certainly seems more targeted than random. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, I meant that this MfD listing is not without a logical justification. User:TreasuryTag probably listed this out of a sense of completeness not out of any attack on User:Neptunerover, targeted, random, or otherwise. APL (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is a perfectly legitimate user space draft. Of course it can't be taken to article space in its current form, but that's why it's a draft. This is a perfectly valid use of user space and we should not discourage Neptunerover from using that space for such purposes. -SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Appropriate use of userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I too have several pages in my userspace that, thinking practically, probably will never actually become articles. But it's nice to at least have them sitting on the back burner, and no one has ever complained to me about them. Look, we all know Neptunerover has made some poor editing choices and inappropriate userpages in the past, but that doesn't mean we need to gang up on him now. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)