Talk:Lake Conroe

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Conroe. 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/20061019073148/http://sjra.net/lake_conroe.php to http://www.sjra.net/lake_conroe.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"Coast Guard base"
Removing unsourced claims. There is no "Coast Guard base" on this lake. Volunteers with the USCG Auxiliary help recreational boaters and patrol the lake from time to time in their personal boats. That is all the linked sources state. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted you edit, it is clearly blanking. I have also added more sources. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed one double source and the Google map what is an unsuitable source. The Banner  talk 22:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * if you have been to the area it operates likes a bace, they have a headquarters building and a dock with multiple coast guard ships. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a "bace"? The Banner  talk 15:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They have "coast guard ships"? Or private, civilian individuals who volunteer with the USCG Auxiliary keep their personal boats there? 149.101.1.117 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are coast guard ships, if you go to the bace they have full coat guard ships patrolling the lake. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly not true. This is personal knowledge thus not a citable source here on wikipedia, but I know for a FACT that there is no USCG presence on Lake Conroe. I can quote you every single USCG operational unit in the USCG Sector Houston-Galveston AOR. If you want a citable source, here you go: Sector Houston-Galveston Units
 * Show me where the Coast Guard has "full coast [sic] guard ships" on Lake Conroe. I'll wait . . ..
 * The Auxiliary is there, yes, but they are CIVILIAN VOLUNTEERS who volunteer their PERSONAL BOATS to assist the USCG on strictly Auxiliary missions. If you don't know that, only one of two things can be true: 1) you don't know the FIRST THING about the USCG Auxiliary, or 2) you're outright lying. Either way, you need to STOP MAKING THINGS UP on this article. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Calm down, I am sorry if while on lake Conroe I mistakenly recognized Auxilery forces with active duty forces. I am going to the Auxilery  Bace soon so hope I can get clarification.  LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also yes, I know its not a bace, please do not call me out on it. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get between you and the other guy here-- I agree with all your general concerns about this article-- but we all gotta step back and be civil. We can get this thing right and make sure it's properly sourced material WITHOUT getting close to any personal attacks. Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where does the base fall under the USCG chain of command? I assume it must be a subordinate unit of USCG Sector Houston-Galveston? Or does it report directly to the Eighth Coast Guard District? Who's the CO of the base? How many actual active duty military personnel are stationed there? What units are homeported there? Who's on watch? Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is under the “Auxiliary” that is why I changed the title. Current commander is Jeff Huhs. No active units are on, once again that is why I changed the title of the chapter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, buddy, I don't think you know what "clearly blanking" is.
 * As I said before, I really do think it's great that you're getting into editing here. But removing one unsourced and inaccurate claim from an article is not blanking (removing content to leave it either "completely blank" or "without substantial any content").
 * I assume you're editing in good faith and just way off base as to what blanking is. But with these edits and the others about the USCG Auxiliary, it really seems like you have a personal interest in the subject. It seems like you are not being honest about the content and trying to mask it by throwing in official-sounding Wikipedia policies like "blanking" and "edit summaries." 149.101.1.117 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am ending in good faith, no offense but I saw an IP address remove a large part of a page and when I went to your talk page I saw you have a large amount of warnings so I got suspicious. I did not mean to incorrectly warn anyone.  LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Conroe Queen
Where in the first source is the Auxiliary mentioned? Not in the text and not in the first clip. And I could not find it in the second clip either. But maybe I have skipped it. So the actual timestamp is appreciated. The second source I can not access as I am in the EU. The Banner talk 14:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Another source, the source does not reference every unit that responded. If you want to be sure you can call them? The sources does say that the coast guard helped. Also if you could tell me why you care this much about Lake Conroe and the USCG Auxilery 6-9 Flotillia I would love to know! LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Effectively, that source does not mention the Auxiliary at all. And why my interest: I like to have a reliably sourced, well written notable article.  The Banner  talk 16:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just gotten up to speed in the past day on some of these edit disputes. The same user, @LuxembourgLover went back in today and added ADDITIONAL claims, citing only the same two sources originally at issue, neither of which say anything about the USCG being involved, much less this Auxiliary Flotilla, much LESS, the Flotilla conducting an investigation (the newly added claims as of today).
 * In short, only ONE source mentions anything about the USCG in passing, and not directly related to this incident (that the USCG inspects the vessel, generally, every two years). NO sources even mention the existence of the Auxiliary Flotilla in this article, much less any notable involvement.
 * I'm pretty new to editing here, but given that this user is continuing to add new material that we KNOW is not sourced, what are the next steps? Obviously we can't just keep going back and forth with the edits, but it seems like we are almost getting to the level of an edit war? Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Buddy, I'm really doing my best to assume good faith here. But either you and I speak a different language or you're adding things in bad faith. The source you JUST LINKED TO says NOT A WORD about your Flotilla, nor the Auxiliary at all, nor even that ANYONE from the USCG, Auxiliary or Active, responded to that incident. It is a SINGLE SENTENCE that merely states the incident happened.
 * Real talk: do you HONESTLY think that the sources you keep listing, which again--unless I am missing some secret part of them that I somehow cannot see-- do not mention the Auxiliary at all-- support the "facts" you keep adding to this article? Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I’ll stop adding stuff. Sorry. Also I have dislexia, sorry for the misspelling. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, bud. No worries about the spelling. I think we can all read what you mean just fine. But, like everyone else is saying, you gotta stick to properly sourced material. I'm new to officially editing but I have been on WP a long time, and what you're doing just isn't it. I'm sure you mean well, but you're adding things that either just aren't true or don't have any sources to prove them.
 * Between you and the other guy, we probably all need to take a step back and be kind. But I do have some major concerns about where you are going with these articles. Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)