Talk:Lloyd D. Brown

Findagrave.com link

It provides a "unique resource" as required by WP:EL, it confirms the birth and death dates with the image of the tombstone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you think you are doing. You are edit-warring to include linkspam though. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny! It is always hilarious when someone says that another person is edit warring, not realizing it takes two to edit war. You left a note that you should not use links for "advertising or promotion", I am not associated with Ancestry.com and I am not advertising it, or promoting it. The links provides a "unique resource" as required by WP:EL as stated above. I know you are philosophically opposed to Findagrave links and are looking to make this a test case, but in my opinion it meets the requirements for an external link by providing a "unique resource" and by not being "advertising or promotion" as required by WP:EL.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): External links should be added using Template:Findagrave. As it is it's added as references to a decidedly non-WP:RS website. Each reflink, as restored/edit-warred over by you, also mentions Findagraves's URL multiple times, which I see as WP:Linkspam. Thomas.W ^talk 17:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Why don't you try to build a consensus on this talk page or go to the issue page for this topic and make your arguments? In the meantime, I don't think removing content is right.

Billmckern (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) RAR and Billmckern, could you look at what you're doing, rather than make assumptions? The reference is untouched, correct? The link I removed is completely irrelevant to verifying anything in this article, correct? No content is being removed, correct? --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I suggest you look at the edit that is being edit-warred over. Ronz tagged references as being non-WP:RS, and removed extra mentions of the URL to findagrave (which was mentioned twice in each reflink), what RAN is doing is removing the maintenance tags and restoring the extra mentions of the URL. So it's not about removing the reference links... Thomas.W ^talk 17:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: -- According to WP:Linkspam "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia."

Please explain how the Find A Grave links you remove are not "good-faith additions intended to verify article content."

Billmckern (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you to gain consensus for inclusion, but then again you still don't appear to even know what you're edit-warring over.

Repeating: The reference is untouched, correct? The link I removed is completely irrelevant to verifying anything in this article, correct? No content is being removed, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Billmckern: Don't you look at what you're reverting? The links to Findagrave in the article are NOT being removed! Thomas.W ^talk 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: -- As far as I can tell the entire citation is being removed. I think it's not right to do that if the Find A Grave article has verifying details.

Billmckern (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Billmckern: This is what the reflinks in the article looked like after being tagged

<ref>[http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=45370306 Katherine Green Brown] at Find A Grave {{rs|date=January 2016}}</ref>

And this is what is being reverted to:

<ref>[http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=45370306 Katherine Green Brown] at [http://findagrave.com/ ''Find A Grave'']</ref>

Anyone who knows how to read a diff, and actually checks what they're reverting before clicking "Send", would immediately see that the reflink to Findagrave is still there, it's only the text under "References" at the bottom of the page that is being changed... Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And, in case further explanation is needed, what each of the reflinks as reverted to does is add "Find A Grave" as a clickable external link to the Findagrave mainpage at the bottom of the page, in addition to being a normal reference. Which in my book is linkspamming. Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not receiving money from Findagrave or the parent company Ancestry.com, so I am not looking to provide "search engine optimization" by spamming articles. It provides a "unique resource" by having an image of the tombstones of his two wives showing their dates of birth and death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No one accused you of having a conflict of interest in this specific case, so let's not waste time.

External links should be located in the External links section, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• You tried to have have Findagrave blacklisted as an unreliable source and that was rejected. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)???? What has that got to do with anything? It is an unreliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and has been found to be an unreliable source at WP:RSN multiple times. But this edit war has nothing to do with that, it's just a case of people not being able to read a diff, or perhaps not bothering to check what they're doing before doing things. The references to Findagrave here have not been removed, just the extra, and totally unneeded, links to the Findagrave mainpage. Thomas.W ^talk 18:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Irrelevant (even if it were true) and disruptive. Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thomas.W: accused me of "Citation spamming ... Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion". You wrote: "an unreliable source by Wikipedia's standards". I see lots of chatter but I have not seen it codified into a !Wikilaw. The attempt to have it blacklisted as an unreliable source and as spam was rejected. Instead of making a stand at this article, why not try again at blacklist with more cogent arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you return to the blacklist page and read what was said there: consensus was that it's not a reliable source, but just being unreliable isn't reason enough to blacklist, it has to be actively spammed too. And they didn't share my opinion that it was being actively spammed. Thomas.W ^talk 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)