User talk:Redzen

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. ~~Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.~~ --Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have to be so harsh, Viriditas?

Redzen, is it true? Did you revert four times in one day? You're new here, so you might not be aware that there's a rule against that.

Please discuss the changes to Anne Frank on the Talk:Anne Frank page. Uncle Ed 02:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cable Street

Copyright law, in the US or in the UK is not designed to prevent the fair use of quotes from any sources. Copyright law is there to protect the copyright holder from the unfair exploitation of their work, usually to stop anyone else making money from their work. Both US and UK copyright law make provision for the fair use of quotation. In the US the concept of fair use exists specifically for this purpose, see fair use: text and Fair use. In the UK there is the concept of Fair dealing, (see also fair dealing in British copyright law). So the law is quite clear. I am neither stupid, now was I born yesterday, I have been working on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and have over 4000 edits, it is clear to anyone that it is obviously not a breach of copyright to quote from a book or an article, and neither do any legal sources claim anything other than that it is acceptable to have a concept of fair use. Wikipedia is based in the USA, and so US copuright law applies anyway. The Guardian itself quotes widely from other sources, including other newspapers, and the Guardian does not make British or American copyright law. It seems clear to me that your claim of a copyright violation is little more than a flimsy excuse to remove this material because you do not like it being there, it offends you. Having looked at your edit list and some of the comments you have made [1] I can only conclude that you have your own agenda here. Still it was a rather unsophisticated attempt at keeping this out. Even if you had been succesful in removing the quote, the information can still be included by citing the source in the Guardian. Alun 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]