Talk:Matthew Cowley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew Cowley 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

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

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Harold B. Lee Library C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) has been paid by BYU. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declarations on userpage
Amgisseman(BYU) (talk · contribs) has been paid by BYU. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declarations on userpage

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

External link[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]