`  == The 3RR thing ==  Thanks for responding. Yes, this has been a very long term issue, at least in regard to the use of the quote function. RAN claims that ArbCom upheld the inclusion, but it's not that clearly stated. The fact is that the other editor routinely pastes in extensive quotes, or in this case, everything included in the abstract from The New York Times. Here is the citation that he added. My position is that since a link is provided to the exact same content from the newspaper, that using the quote is pointless. It is easily verified from the link included. He keeps saying that ArbCom upheld the use of quotes, which is simply untrue. The ArbCom decision was ``6) In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in Wikipedia:Footnotes covering the content of footnotes, the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation.`` They said this was a content issue, and consensus should determine it. The evidence page includes the places where this has been discussed, including that RAN has ignored consensus before, and multiple links to AN/I. My position is that when we have the direct link to the source, which is a very stable link, the use of the copy and paste quote of everything shown is both redundant and my gut feeling is that it skirts copyright violation. That would be the point where he said my ignorance astounded him. The next point he kept reverting was from New York Times archives. First, consider that the newspaper articles involved employed an antiquated style of titling, which included the main title and multiple subtitles, which I feel are unnecessary. The example of which he kept reverting is found here. The main title is ``POLICE TRY TO LINK BUDD GIRL'S SLAYER TO 3 OTHER CRIMES``. The other 4 or 5 sentences after that are subtitles, which would be reflected if the webpage included a copy of the actual newspaper page. Also note that the portion RAN included as a ``quote`` encompasses the entire first paragraph of the article. The last issue is his insistence on including blank template parameters. It is simply relevant to the source what parameter is left and what can be removed from the citation. Like I said at the 3RR board, in this specific case, retaining the parameters for the author of the Times article will suddenly appear, when the actual source itself, which is over 75 years old and does not name the author. Thus the argument presented by RAN and Jack Merridew is moot. It isn't going to happen that a name will suddenly be discovered. This is my rationale for refusing to respond to the biased questions RAN posted on Talk:Albert Fish. He's posting general questions about the issue, while the point here is that the questions should be specific to the situation. His questions did not take into consideration the issue specific to the Fish page. I left the quotes he put in that had no links to check, and removed the ones that did provide means of verification. Does this answer your question?   `