Difference between revisions of "Talk:Michelle Malkin"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Remove inappropriate post; not a straight reversion.) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Why is this long list of subjects advertising for her on this article, anyway? Isn't this an encyclopedia, and isn't this information a heck of a lot more appropriate on her site, not an article? I removed it, but Jinxmchue added it back in without explanation... maybe you could do so here, Jinx?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | Why is this long list of subjects advertising for her on this article, anyway? Isn't this an encyclopedia, and isn't this information a heck of a lot more appropriate on her site, not an article? I removed it, but Jinxmchue added it back in without explanation... maybe you could do so here, Jinx?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
: Jimxchue didn't exactly "add it back in". His new list was significantly shorter, and is now described as "regularly covered topics", and there was an edit comment by way of (brief) explanation. That's not to say that the list should be there, but to point out that it's not a straight reversion without any explanation. I do, however, think there is merit in listing her key topics, so perhaps it ''should'' be there? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:14, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | : Jimxchue didn't exactly "add it back in". His new list was significantly shorter, and is now described as "regularly covered topics", and there was an edit comment by way of (brief) explanation. That's not to say that the list should be there, but to point out that it's not a straight reversion without any explanation. I do, however, think there is merit in listing her key topics, so perhaps it ''should'' be there? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:14, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::I agree there is merit in listing topics she commonly covers ("Malkin regularly writes about immigration issues, environmental alarmism...") and so on, but to advertise so blatantly seems fairly unencyclopedic.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:56, June 8, 2008
Content
This is a funny article...Is Michelle running for class president or what? There is no real info here about her, just a couple of lines about some of her columns. Weak! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spike (talk)
Archives
The rest of her archives should be filled in; it looks odd only going up to H. DanH 19:43, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
- Done. --Crocoite 20:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
List of subjects
Why is this long list of subjects advertising for her on this article, anyway? Isn't this an encyclopedia, and isn't this information a heck of a lot more appropriate on her site, not an article? I removed it, but Jinxmchue added it back in without explanation... maybe you could do so here, Jinx?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
- Jimxchue didn't exactly "add it back in". His new list was significantly shorter, and is now described as "regularly covered topics", and there was an edit comment by way of (brief) explanation. That's not to say that the list should be there, but to point out that it's not a straight reversion without any explanation. I do, however, think there is merit in listing her key topics, so perhaps it should be there? Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
- I agree there is merit in listing topics she commonly covers ("Malkin regularly writes about immigration issues, environmental alarmism...") and so on, but to advertise so blatantly seems fairly unencyclopedic.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT)