User talk:Mnnlaxer/Archive 3

Gina Haspel...

I was going through the recent revisions to Gina Haspel, and I noticed these two edits. You are correct that there is no conflict between Haspel being the 2nd woman, and the 1st female career officer to be appointed 2nd in command. However, Trump spokesmen, like Kelly-Anne Conway, explicitly described her as the 1st woman. Conway was specifically quoted in The Guardian reference you culled.

Different contributors have different ideas about how we should cover material from RS that we believe is false. One approach is to quote the references we think are incorrect, allowing our intelligent readers to have an opportunity to make up their own mind as to whether the RS assertion is incorrect.

One advantage to this approach is that sometimes, when I reached the personal conclusion that an RS was wrong, I was mistaken, and the source I thought was questionable, was right all along.

Another approach is to apply common sense, our own judgment, and not bother using references if we think their assertions aren't reliable.

Some other contributors have excised material and references when their judgment about guantanamo topics was based on some of those widespread misconceptions. You know the misconception... that torture was unquestionably legal; that the captives were "convicts"; or that they were all "captured on the battlefield"...

For the first couple of months I worked on Guantanamo related topics I quietly corrected really obvious DoD errors, because everyone makes the occasional mistake. But, when I realized the level of error, how very unreliable the DoD documents were, I decided to stop quietly correcting obvious errors.

So, what do you think? Is it worth covering that Trump lieutenants incorrectly described Haspel as the first woman, so our readers can reach their own conclusion as to how reliable his lieutenants are?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think Conway being wrong is not notable for this article and shouldn't be included. You can change the reference if you like. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was just Conway, however. As I watched the coverage of her appointment she was widely reported to be the first female 2nd in command. So I don't see it as an unremarkable, rare mistake -- the kind of outlier that should be ignored. Rather, this kind of misrepresentation seems routine. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfreda Bikowsky

Hello. Thanks for your work in maintaining the Alfreda Bikowsky article. You reverted my unsourced edit [1], so I've gone ahead and put in a bunch of other sources, let me know if that's ok or I can add more. 23.241.118.29 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on Talk:Alfreda Frances Bikowsky#Situation Room photo - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claude J. Hunt

Mnnlaxer, I see you made some edits to the Claude J. Hunt article. Where did you get his conference record of 29–13–1 at Carleton from? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From MIAC and MWC sources, conference records by year, cited in Carleton Knights football. But the records probably aren't complete, 1924 in the MIAC just says "champions". So feel free to delete if you want. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded that table with the yearly results found at the conference websites. I removed the conference total of of 29–13–1 since the 1924 MIAC record is missing. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Just to let you know, unfortunately you're wasting your time trying to make a case at WP:EL. It's one of those policy areas where a very small number of editors dominate with their own personal take on a guideline and stonewall anything that goes against their view. You're best off raising this as an issue at a better-attended noticeboard like a specific WikiProject where there will be more input and less risk of the aforementioned stonewalling. Number 5 7 14:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree, but I’m dumb and stubborn enough to keep it up. Good advice, unfortunately, the college football project is very strict with external links as well. All in the name of a “standard”, a faux policy that can’t have exceptions. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: If you're interested, I filed a dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Carleton Knights football and quoted you there. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 and Mnnlaxer: just to note, that the 2 editors that at first removed the links as failing our inclusion standards have no significant interaction with WT:EL/WP:ELN - you may be better of following what the dominant part of Wikipedia considers to be the consensus as it is currently described in our policies and guidelines, including WP:EL and WP:NOT. If there is any stonewalling, then that is because that is the consensus of the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, answer

My apologies, Mnnlaxer, I completely forgot about your post. You did thank me with the link. As for the logos, non-free logos should be 300×300px or less. At WP:UPLOAD, you have two options: use the File Upload Wizard which takes longer and you'll need to fix the templates or you can use this version and just copy another logo's templates and replace it with the correct information. Hope that helps! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That second option is great. I knew you weren't using the wizard. Thanks! - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Carleton Knights football team

If you have sources that could improve 1992 Carleton Knights football team, please feel free to add them. Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What!?!?!?!?!?!?! I'm in shock. The good kind. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

;) Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Amazing work with those sources. I just made a couple easy corrections but will come back later. There is an article by Patrick Reusse in the StarTribune written after the Tommies game, so October 4, that would be great to have. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for MAJOR deletions to Dartmouth Big Green Men's Lacrosse page?

Sir, with all due respect, I revisited the Dartmouth Big Green Men's Lacrosse page after several months absence and witnessed a series of MAJOR deletions to the content of the page from yourself. Comments as follows were noted explaining your changes >> "removed assistant coach hires, moved individual honors paragraph to talk. Not relevant enough for article." "remove minor player awards" "change name of section, not ideal, but at least accurate" "moving material about Dent to talk page, he needs to have an article - anybody?"

I am not sure your relationship to Dartmouth lacrosse? Myself, the parent of a Dartmouth lacrosse player who straddled the Towers/Callahan era. I contributed a large 2015 update to this page from a previously nascent page. Bringing factual information to the interested reader seemed to be EXACTLY what an Encyclopedia represented. However, your edits have chosen to unilaterally demote such interesting AND factual information. Why would you consider Ivy League recognition of Dartmouth players to be "minor awards"??? Why would information about hiring of assistant coaches be considered "not relevant?

A cursory review of your editing history clearly highlights your lacrosse interests. I respectfully would like to know your motivation in carving up the Dartmouth Big Green Men's Lacrosse page in a way that seems contradictory to the spirit of Encyclopedic knowledge.

JamesRichardFishman (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for sir, I work for a living. Check out the talk page Talk:Dartmouth Big Green men's lacrosse, I'm glad to discuss the issues with you there. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board DYK

Hey Mnnlaxer, I see the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board DYK is currently in a prep area for the DYK queue. So it should be up in a few days!

Thanks again for all the hard work you put in on this. Feel free to reach out if you ever want editing help. Is it safe to assume you are Minneapolis-based? Perhaps we will meet in person sometime :-) I do participate in local edit-a-thons when I can. = paul2520 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey back Paul2520. No problem, thanks for your help. I am Minneapolis born, lived in the twin cities most of my life. I've never done an edit-a-thon and don't even know where to look to sign up. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer, you can see a events posted at Wikipedia:Meetup/Minnesota, and a link for the mailing list. I went to a couple last year, and really enjoyed them. Hoping to see more; potentially interested in organizing one myself. = paul2520 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in prep4, will go to queue4, to appear on 25 January for 12 hours, together with one of mine ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 01:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]