Talk:Carol Molnau

Truthvslies

User "Truthvslies" made a bunch of edits on April 28, 2009 that overall seem to remove references and add editorialism. I am considering reverting out all of the changes. Any advice?

dfrankow (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am new at Wikepedia so perhaps I am not following the best process for this. I didn't add editorialism, I simply added additional references from the same articles you/others pull from. However, this story about Carol Molnau is just that, a story. It is very lopsided as references are pulled out of articles but you/others never reference the other side of the article. I don't believe contributers are trying to be factual in any sense in this article at all but rather present the negative views of every story. A prime example is putting in the negative comments from the Senate when they ousted Molnau but not referencing the positive comments from the Senate from the SAME article. And what does her selling her farm have to do with anything? Has anyone in the world sold a house in 8 days? She was obviously in the works on her farm for months/years and the fact she pushed to get a hwy on a list of future projects has nothing to do with her farm but rather with doing what is right for her constituents (that is her job!) If you post that, why not post the good she does for veterans and her community? You are going out of your way and using Wikepedia as a way to bash a person you obviously don't see eye to eye with, that's what blogs are for.

--Truthvslies (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, it looks like you were trying to edit in good faith, so I should probably not simply revert all of your edits. I didn't (and don't) have time to look through all of them. I reverted because 1) I saw things that were not factual (e.g., the word "unfairly", which is opinion), 2) claims that did not have good references, 3) a username "Truthvslies" which is very provocative on the face of it that had only edited one article. However, if I was mistaken, please put factual claims with references back.

For example, you just added, "In an effort to speed up the project." I don't wish to be hostile, but I removed it because I could find no evidence in the referenced newspaper article. I am not opposed to the phrase, as long as there is support for it in a public reliable news source. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which in particular says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Also, to respond to your opinions on this talk page:

I don't believe contributers are trying to be factual in any sense in this article at all but rather present the negative views of every story. A prime example is putting in the negative comments from the Senate when they ousted Molnau but not referencing the positive comments from the Senate from the SAME article.

I believe people are trying to be factual, or at least that is the eventual goal. Also, please put in the positive comments from the same article, and reference them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info.

And what does her selling her farm have to do with anything? Has anyone in the world sold a house in 8 days? She was obviously in the works on her farm for months/years and the fact she pushed to get a hwy on a list of future projects has nothing to do with her farm but rather with doing what is right for her constituents (that is her job!)

Selling her farm was a political issue in Minnesota, so I believe it is relevant to stay in the article. If there are references or quotes of the viewpoint that it did not make her look tainted, those are also relevant to put in.

If you post that, why not post the good she does for veterans and her community? You are going out of your way and using Wikepedia as a way to bash a person you obviously don't see eye to eye with, that's what blogs are for.

If there are references for the good she does, please post them. I do not intend to use Wikipedia as a way to bash someone. For what it's worth, I didn't write any of the article. I'm just trying to keep it as factual as possible.

dfrankow (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that my wording of "unfairly" was not appropriate in this article and I thank you for pointing that out as that is my opinion, not the article referenced. Yes I actually just set up an account the same day I edited this article so it was my first go at it and I have been reading the articles on here to learn more about the process. I did see some positives in the articles already referenced and I will also post other positives from other articles currently not referenced.

I see your point about the farm and am fine with it, however, I don't see it as anything other than a Representative representing her community. Being from that area, the HWY 212 completion has been a godsend and I along with others in the area can't rave enough about how much traffic/flow has improved because of it.

Thanks for the comments, in the future I will contribute to this article and others but in a more acceptable manner. --Truthvslies (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutraility?

On 28 September ISP 74.38.90.197 added a neutrality tag to this article, but aside from some rather tame snarkiness I don't see much controversy here. Anyone care to defend the tag? I'll take it down in about a week if I don't see any reasons as to why it should be there. Lizz612 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add all the positive things one could say about Ms. Molnau to add balance. I'm still trying to think of something to add. --Appraiser 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need balance (I said something bad now I should say something good "She has nice hair") as much as we need to present the facts in a manner that is not biased. That said, I don't think much of the facts here are biased. "Debacle" might be a bit of a loaded term, but other than that, I don't see it. Lizz612 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

•I'm thinking "mishap" might be a better word than "debacle" so I'm changing that, giving it another read through, and tomorrow I'll probably take down the Neutrality tag. Unless anyone else has anything to add to this discussion (if you can call it that).Lizz612 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carol Molnau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820164720/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=3442381 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3442381

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carol Molnau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023104930/http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1343631.html to http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1343631.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025083114/http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1357661.html to http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1357661.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330063212/http://www.startribune.com:80/local/west/15909507.html to http://www.startribune.com/local/west/15909507.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carol Molnau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820125328/http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1370130.html to http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1370130.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508022625/http://minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3295 to http://minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3295

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)