Talk:Matthew Cowley

Untitled

I have changed the Published Books to Published Works because not all publications are books.

I joined the sentence fragment "Upon his release in September of 1945." with the succeeding sentence, and restructured the sentence some. One does not "replace" a "vacancy", one "fills" it. --Mike 18:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

External link

As per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed links should be excluded by default until there is consensus for inclusion. @Sundayclose: please explain what unique value you feel the disputed link provides when there are already images of both the gravestone and memorial in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The link to F.A.G. provides better images. WP:RSP#Find A Grave allows for some uses of the website, so the requirement for consensus does not always apply. Sundayclose (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference in image quality sufficient to justify inclusion of the link, and no such exemption to the consensus requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We each have an opinion, and yours carries no more weight than mine. And in the event you continue repeating yourself from other talk pages. ELBURDEN not a "tiebreaker". My last comment unless you say something new or someone else comments. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, Sundayclose, what policy or guideline do you believe supports your position and actions here, keeping in mind that RSP is neither? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, if I remove every F.A.G. external link for every English Wikipedia article with no discussion, citing ELBURDEN, (1) should that be allowed and, equally important, (2) would it be in the best interest of the spirit of ELBURDEN and IAR? Sundayclose (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I anticipate that there are at least some cases in which a link has already been discussed and consensus found for inclusion, meaning that the "burden" of ELBURDEN has been met - on that basis a blanket removal would be ill-advised. But that's not what we're looking at here.

Your turn. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

So let me specify: I ask my same question with the qualifier "all English Wikipedia articles for which there has been no discussion of the issue". And by the way, we're not playing "tag, you're it". We're talking about how to improve Wikipedia. So it's nobody's "turn". Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer to my question anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I take that to mean you either don't want to answer my question or don't know the answer, although there could be other possiblities I haven't considered. Unless I was wrong in my good-faith assumption that this is not a game for you. If it's a game, I'm not playing. And I would appreciate an answer to my question. Sundayclose (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You should take it to mean that I'd really like you to answer the question you're choosing to ignore, rather than going off on hypotheticals. But in the interests of conversation, making any mass contextless edit is a bad idea, and there are other policies that speak to that case - which, again, is not this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that I agreed with some of the challenges you made to my edits, can you acknowledge that in some articles it was acceptable for me to restore the F.A.G. external link? If so, I think we don't need any further discussion of this issue and I appreciate the discussion, unless again this is a game for you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that in some cases after I posted to the talk page you self-reverted. But the answer to your question is no, because it wasn't. I understand you might disagree with my belief that the articles in question are each not improved by the addition of the link, but that's why ELBURDEN exists - so if we disagree, we have a discussion and arrive at a consensus. At this point we haven't done that, and you haven't come up with any policy-based reason why you restored the links anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes we disagree, and I think there's no point in further discussion because it seems to me you think every undiscussed addition of the F.A.G. is unacceptable (although you haven't really answered my question), and I could never agree to that. Sometimes that happens. It takes more than two people discussing in some cases. But, like I said, I appreciate the discussion but I think you and I are at an impasse. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That is... not what I said. But in any event, as we have reached an impasse I have removed the link per WP:NOCON. Have a good day. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I know you didn't say it directly because you didn't answer my question. Feel free to provide an answer. I won't argue for this particular article, but if you begin indiscriminately removing F.A.G. links, we'll be having a more serious discussion. And you have a good day as well. Sundayclose (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)