I attempted to add edits that were well-documented and well-cited and Cordless Larry completely reverted. I would appreciate input and discussion from others and would also ask Cordless Larry to assume good faith rather than assuming accurate and well-documented information by respected publications are "promotional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B004:68B5:35A3:9C97:26FC:FBB6 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
For reference, here are the additions. The claim that Fleming is "the highest ranking member of the Trump administration from Louisiana" doesn't appear to be sourced, but I would argue that it is trivia anyway - and therefore doesn't belong in the article. The net worth information appears to be from several years ago, so shouldn't be described in the present tense. The EDA material might well belong in the article, but it needs to be written in an encyclopedic rather than journalistic style. Can I also ask you to clarify whether you have any relationship with the subject of the article, IP editor? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, you say, "The EDA material might well belong in the article." Rather than delete the edits completely, why not improve the article? Positive information is not necessarily promotional. How would you add the EDA information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B004:68B5:35A3:9C97:26FC:FBB6 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
