The RR 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 its 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  In the absence of unambiguous guidance in the Manual of style and in WikipediaFootnotes 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 ANI 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 GIRLS SLAYER TO  OTHER CRIMES The other  or  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 RR 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  years old and does not name the author Thus the argument presented by RAN and Jack Merridew is moot It isnt 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 TalkAlbert Fish Hes 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