Talk:Lloyd D. Brown

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lloyd D. Brown article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: Biography / North America / United States / World War I / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Georgia (U.S. state) Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)...
Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles.
Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category.
Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data
Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes
Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state)
Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state)
Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs.
Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
- Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner.
- Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]