Talk:Dan Antonioli

message: 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)
thread_title: Work needed

message: *In Wikipedia:Help_desk#Quotes_in_references, only one other person responded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Received almost universal comment from other editors who answered that this may be a copyright violation

message: 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  to  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)
thread_title: Eligible for [[WP:CSD#G12]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  removal of quotes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified