User talk:Kulmanseidl/Archive of Natalie Jaresko page edit discussion

Proposed deletion of Natalie_Jaresko
[]

The article Natalie_Jaresko part of which you Kulmanseidl removed, has been restored. Please do not remove articles without first contacting the author and proposing a compromise or agreeing to a solution. proposed for deletion

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be changed after it has been agreed to, this avoids an edit war. Thanks for your contribution Kulmanseidl.

(kk (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC))

Please do use the normal methods of communicating as this shows respect to others. The edit summary has no meaning to me nor is there any reference to your own source. Please be so kind as to explain, thank you. kk (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear about that DNW is neither an impartial, nor a fact-based, nor a relevant source and that the edit you made can therefore only be considered as a baseless slander, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten does not follow the rules of good journalism.

Sorry for not replying, I did not see that you used an alternative display name, I thought this was an auto-generated message from a bot.

Kulmanseidl (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Although I would assume this to be general knowledge and quite obvious for anyone interested in fact-based news sources, here is some additional info on why DNW is a bad source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maier_%28Journalist%29#Blogform-Unternehmen

Looking at the way they do journalism gives a lot of reasons to question every word the say.

Kulmanseidl (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)