User talk:Nblund/Archives/2018/November

Alert
I'm the "restoring" editor of the Ilana Mercer Page. And quite frankly, I don't see any problems that need addressing. Is Wiki about slander? That's all the SPLC article that you keep linking to is. Kc2290 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)kc290
 * Hi Kc2290: I offered additional details in the discussion here, it's possible that you aren't seeing the issues because you haven't participated in the discussion. Please comment on that page. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 02:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is what you do ... I make edits to the Mercer page, who despite what you say does deserve an entry on this site - a syndicated columnist who has appeared on TV, radio, etc., and then you revert them back and write like a 3rd grader. "She born in South Africa and leave." That's basically what it sounds like.


 * Also, how is it not proper when documenting a writers views on a subject to actually use their writings?


 * What do you all day troll the pages of Right-Wing figures? Kc2290 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)kc290
 * Hi Kc2290. The question of whether or not someone "deserves" an entry is really something that is decided by community consensus. As it stands, every editor who has looked at this issue has said that the entry doesn't meet the WP:GNG guidelines that determine whether or not an entry on Wikipedia is warranted. So it's very likely that this entry will be deleted unless new sources show up. It probably isn't a great use of your time to continue editing it anyway unless you find reliable secondary sources that discuss Mercer.
 * As for your other question: I attempted to answer that in my response at the BLP noticeboard - so if you're still unclear on the issues, you should read that first, and then I can try to answer any other questions you might have.
 * One final note: I did open a discussion about your editing at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard - I did this because I have some reason to suspect you might be personally connected to the subject of the article, and you are editing in a way that gives the appearance that you are trying to protect her "interests". You can read the rules on conflict of interest editing here. And you can read or respond to the discussion I opened here. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I havent received any message from you re the Putnam edit we've disagreed on. /EOM
Message is in subject line
 * User:Bellagio99 The discussion is on the article talk page. I included the link in the edit summary. Here it is again: Talk:Robert_D._Putnam


 * I agree with you re Mercer's fringeness. I do know Putnam's work, and while I agree with her about Putnam's conclusion, I agree with you that it is not a reliable source. On to the next thing.... Bellagio99 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)