Talk:Erica C. Barnett

3938:

deletion. The article is clearly promotional, and is distorting source coverage to make it seem as if Barnett is the focus of that coverage when other subjects such as NextDoor.com and police accountability were. When you sift through this, what you end up with is "Erica C. Barnett is a journalist, and has actually done some journalism while employed as one. And local people read her stuff, and local businesses and organizations have paid attention to her, as they are wont to do with local journalists." This is not an encyclopedia article, and I have skepticism that it can be rescued. Just because someone is in a public-facing career doesn't make them encyclopedically notable simply because they're employed and have been working. That equates to competence not notability. Show us Barnett winning multiple national and international awards, for example.

1858:. Whatever we intend, I think people feel harassed and embarrassed if details of criminal records (even minor ones) make a substantial part of articles about them. I know they seem public about that stuff, but it's different when they do it; they get to choose the time and provide context in a way they can't in the article. I think we should avoid including such details if the crime itself isn't notable, and this one isn't. We can be informative and avoid all of those issues just by naming the memoir and waiting for secondary review sources. It makes me think of celebrity DUI convictions; they're much more serious and usually public record (I think) but I'm not sure they generally belong in biographies. Do you know if there's a consensus on that? 2621:. All that gossip about getting her Nextdoor account suspended or drinking or professional errors is tabloid trash. The policy is very clear: "it is not Knowledge's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered." We need very good sources and we need a very good reason to trash somebody's reputation. That crap doesn't balance the article. It might be interesting color to read about a historical figure, but anybody still living gets the benefit of the doubt. It's a firm policy you don't get to dick around with. -- 1771:— obfuscating all mention of said drinking, relapse and recovery from this article, therefore, would be exceptionally odd and would not serve our readers. Knowledge BLPs exist to paint an holistic and accurate picture of their subject so as to give the reader insight and perspective on their motivations, struggles, and journey. They serve a different purpose than a biography on a book jacket or a press release which is designed to promote and highlight the subject's career achievements. While I appreciate the subject of this article's perspective on the matter, three short sentences in a lightly sourced, four paragraph article is hardly 829: 808: 3507:

websites she founded, while working freelance for various established media. It's accurate and straightforward to put the simple word "journalist" in the infobox. Why do you feel the need to point out that her current journalistic medium is mostly via a blog, but you don't feel any compulsion to mention her decade of newspaper journalism? Why the blog medium but not print? You are probably aware of her several years appearing on KUOW radio every week, but haven't felt the need to mention she is a radio journalist, in addition to being a print journalist, and a blog journalist.

3653:, says such behavior "is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban". You are threatening me with blocks and bans, on utterly absurd grounds. I asked why we must highlight the blog medium; and if that's what we're doing, then let's list all media, not pick out one for unexplained reasons. For which you suggested i could be banned or blocked! What on Earth is wrong with you? I suggest you get a grip on yourself. Either get over to ANI and propose a block or ban, or cease and deist your threats, and cease casting aspersions. The arbcom has 444: 1131:"alcoholic," probably because the word has clear derogatory implication in current U.S. culture; that word was inserted by the editor. Although the editor may be able to argue that the statement is factually true (depending on one's beliefs about alcoholism), factual truth is too low of a standard for a BLP. The standard is an NPOV "written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". More NPOV summaries of the article might include "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" or "Barnett had been an alcoholic but is now sober." 419: 649: 618: 548: 659: 2306:". The earlier versions of this article had negative content that was highly dubious, and not written to the high standards of the BLP policy, and was not sufficiently well sourced. It also over-emphasized negative information. With biographies, if an article is missing content and only has coverage of negative information, creating an unbalanced viewpoint, the negative content has to be deleted until the article is expanded. 752: 918: 897: 776: 1038: 968: 538: 520: 2699: 1426: 349: 331: 1022: 300: 486: 3439:

considered a mere blog, and as time went on it was taken more seriously, due to the work cited here in the article, and sources felt it more accurate to call her an "independent journalist" than a blogger. But again, she was a journalist for a decade before that; her "blogging" was an example of the changing media landscape, not her quitting the journalism profession.

1793:

memoir) to respectfully inform readers that the subject has issues with alcohol without highlighting embarrassing trivialities. If she'd gotten drunk and shot up a diner or ran over a schoolchild we might have something to include, but I just can't reconcile due weight with a dismissed shoplifting charge. Maybe if it was a Faberge Egg or a Monet, and widely reported?

229: 201: 3082:. The article was retracted. That happened. It's neither positive nor negative, it's simply a biographical fact. Respectfully, I think you're a little caught up on your idea of "positive content" versus "negative content". There is no such thing. There is only factual content. We include all factual content of due weight. Second, your sources for there being a 430: 3516:

radio journalist, is consistent with the overall pattern of edits. I easily found 10 sources to support "journalist", and if adding 10 more would matter, would take no time. It's taken a while to scrape together more than 3 to support "blogger". Apparently it's something you felt compelled to spend time searching for. Am I wrong in noting a pattern here?

3682:- This is Knowledge, not Playstation 4. We all win when WP is improved through discussion and community-built consensus. Civil dialog and respectful interaction with each other is part of that process. I hope that, in the future, you will come to realize the value of rational, norm-based behavior. Thanks, as always, for your passionate contributions. 1317:

vandalism and I believe the account might need to be blocked. We can certainly have that conversation at the appropriate venue if she continues to edit in bad faith. Look, we both saw the reddit post and now people are attempting to make edits accordingly. The article is more important than your feelings or attempted PR.

359: 3631:

you've chosen to conduct yourself here. I think there's really no utility in continuing this discussion since it appears we're unable to do so without these dramatic digressions and contortions. I'm sure we've both expressed our opinion adequately and I'll defer to other editors to weigh-in moving forward. Thanks.

3180:, and even given the effort the NYT makes to cover it from Herzog's point of view, it underscores my point that she is a lightning rod of criticism who is not trusted by a significant number of people. Someone that controversial can't be your main source for damaging information about someone else. If we have 3528:

I say, it seems easier to just say 'journalist', but if we must specify journalistic media, it seems kind of biased to arbitrarily pick and choose them. Again, my question is, why? What's the purpose of this? It appears to be to cast the subject in a worse light. If that isn't the purpose, what is it? --

3630:

Please dial it back just a little bit. No one here is threatening you. No one here is trying to impugn Erica Barnett. No one here is out to "get" you or Erica. There are no conspiracies being concocted in which you or Erica are the targets. I'm completely perplexed and confused at the manner in which

3527:

If we must (for reasons I'm unaware of as yet) stuff more detail into the infobox, then it should say newspaper reporter and newspaper editor for the years 2000-2009, and then for the years 2009-2019, blogger and independent journalist. And I guess mention weekly radio news analyst too? Somehow. Like

3327:

or pared back. Perhaps that would be done to pass GA review. But in the case of stubs that need to be expanded. filling the page with "excess" citations serves to move the ball down the field, taking care of part of the work for future editors to build upon to expand to a full article. Generally when

3438:

If the subject of a BLP used to have a paper route or work at McDonald's, should we add "paperboy" or "fast food worker" to their infobox? It's not harmful or wrong to call Barnett a blogger, or former blogger. It's more accurate to say that in earlier years, Barnett's thecisforcrank.com website was

2552:

You want to insult a living person, calling a journalist a mere blogger, for a few more MONTHS? I cited a half dozen cases of mainstream journalists calling Barnett an "independent journalist" and crediting her with an important scoop that influenced public policy or activity. You cannot leave a BLP

2295:

guidelines explain how this works. Anybody -- even editors with a conflict of interest -- are free to edit any page the like, same as anybody else. The only requirement is to disclose their conflict, which tends to invite additional scrutiny. Which usually leads to the discovery that it is extremely

2195:

stop it. You are going to get us both blocked and the page locked. I have removed the contentious line and restored the previous version. It is not my problem she is a drunk (maybe I enjoy beer, too) but we need to take a chill pill and not break an article about a person that actually might need to

2066:

somethin like that. Alcohol is an important part of her past and context, that she writes about (not the particular theft event so much, but the rest of the paragraph). The reason given for removing it seems disingenuous, since the material is well sourced, so the removal should probably have just

1792:

While it doesn't seem to be unsourced speculation, it's not encyclopedic that half of biography's personal life section is devoted to a dismissed shoplifting charge over a bottle of wine. When her memoir is published and reviewed there will be plenty of well sourced information (e.g, the name of the

1120:

Hi, I'm B K. I know Ms Barnett, but created this page on my own initiative and without her prompting (but with her permission, because it's the polite thing to do). I've been a Knowledge editor for 14 years. An administrator (not Ms Barnett) brought the page to my attention again, and another asked

3835:

Sorry - to clarify, I was thanking you for your passion on the topic that has lubricated your continued interest in it. I liberally hand-out thank-yous (1,294 so far) but they usually don't portend much deeper meaning than general appreciation for participation. Also, it's not totally necessary you

3062:

I'd like to know what this information adds to the article. If Barnett was widely considered unreliable, this could be cited as evidence. But that' is not the case: numerous diverse professional sources cite her as reliable. So what exactly are we trying to tell readers with this? What's the point?

1747:

The subject of the article has widely discussed her struggle with sobriety in media and its connection to her journalistic mentors such as Hunter S. Thompson; it is an important aspect of her life story. To omit it would leave an incomplete picture of the subject. I disagree that a matter discussed

3869:

As for why I preface your name with "administrator," I do that as a sign of respect for administrators who functionality exhibit the model behaviour. Some administrators can be downright uncivil or exercise their privileges in questionable methods; I do not preface their name with "administrator."

3515:

a defamation lawsuit that went nowhere, subsequently judged to be of dubious BLP status, and to question whether her work is even notable, calling credit given her by major media as merely "routine". The desire to call her a blogger, without any interest in adding detail like newspaper reporter or

3506:

You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all. What is your intent? It's not all that helpful to stuff infoboxes with excess detail. And the need for, how many? Eight footnotes? She was a newspaper journalist for a decade, and then continued doing journalism on

2316:

This is a roundabout way of saying I don't think the lines about the Atlantic article and retraction should be kept. The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer, and we have to do better any time we are citing allegations of wrongdoing. The entire

3510:

To me these multiple edits to change it to blogger, or add blogger ahead of journalist, seem to serve to invalidate and diminish her work. Most (not all) of the article edits you have made, and almost every talk page comment, has been to remove or cast doubt on laudatory descriptions and positive

3503:

I didn't say "shameful". Also didn't say "wrong" or "insulting". Didn't say "disreputable". I didn't say 2017 was "way back"; I said 2012. So these are plainly straw man arguments which I don't think I should have to spend time batting away. It's kind of a waste of everyone's time for you to have

3175:

Knowledge pages, not only the article namespace. It doesn't matter if it's talk or draft or sandbox; if it could harm a living person, it has to be impeccably sourced, no matter where you say it. If we say anything about the Atlantic retraction, it must rely on multiple sources with no cloud over

3125:

The BLP policy says you're wrong. There is content that is potentially harmful and is held to a higher standard. You need to explain what the purpose of this is. The inability to get by without one source is a red flag. If this had merit, you'd have many alternative sources and removing one would

2584:

The current version is belittling. The section on Nextdoor gets the story completely wrong. What happened was Barnett broke a major story and changed city policy. It sneeringly describes it as her getting her Nextdoor account suspended for bad behavior. Barnett is the reason Seattle pulled out of

1141:

Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people. If a source has a hard slant and has no NPOV itself, it may not be reliable enough to cite. If an editor has sufficiently strong feelings that they may not be able to maintain balance, the best thing to do may be to refrain from editing.

3937:

No sure why we're arguing about this. Since AfD closed to delete on notability grounds, the tag is correct (at least for now). It signals to other editors working in draft-space why this page is in there and thus what kind of work it most needs. PS: While I missed the AfD, I would have supported

2442:

You literally just edit warred, and now you have the gall to say "stop edit warring"? LOL. No, buddy. If you edit war, others will edit war. If you wish to declare an end to it, then you have to stop. The problem is you're on the wrong side of the BLP policy. I am putting the article in the most

3612:

I take that as a non-responsive answer. Some kind of veiled threat? It's really hard to tell. You fall into this quasi-threat mode from time to time, and as anyone would, I'm nonplussed. You get yourself on over to ANI if you have a heinous crime to report. And best of luck with that! Otherwise

1363:

This was clearly not done in good faith. It's an attempt to embarrass her. The fact that they spent time gathering sources for their bad faith edits does not make them good faith, and the version of the article without them should take precedence rather than defaulting to institutionalization.

1316:

To be fair, I did extrapolate only a few peices from the interview focused on her sobriety. Maybe other information is just as important? Article aside, the next step for Barnett attempting to edit the article is requesting administrative intervention. It is not appropriate to accuse others of

3662:

A constructive contribution would be to say in plain, simple words, why do you want to add "blogger" to the infobox occupation field, yet not add print, newspaper, radio, etc? You said it's because you found it in sources, but you are well aware sources verify she worked in print media, in

1130:

To give an example for new editors of what non-NPOV looks like, one early edit stated that "Barnett is an alcoholic". There is no way to read this short sentence as NPOV—especially given the NPOV of the source, an article entitled "A journalist gets sober." The article never uses the word

1392:

I think we should dial this back a bit. This is a fairly routine content dispute that can be very easily resolved through a discussion that focuses on the relevance and content of the sources and doesn't castigate or impugn the motivations of individual editors. I'm happy to open an RfC.

3842:(Also, some people might find referring to an editor's user rights can have a chilling effect on discussion as new and novice editors might incorrectly interpret agreement or disagreement as constituting some sort of official opinion, even though user rights are just maintenance tools.) 1173:

claim. However, I agree that your suggestion of "Barnett is a recovering alcoholic" is the best proposal of the three. I apologize if my word choice revealed a lack of nuance or understanding, on my part, of the sensitivity regarding this issue and thank you for this explanation and

3328:

that has happened, the strings of 4 or 5 footnotes, as well as the pile of "further reading" or "external links" collecting at the bottom of the article get spread out through the enlarged article body. You can slap tags on it if you want, or tag the bottom of the article with

1810:

Good points, I'm tempted to change my !vote ... the article has been going through a fast sequence of reverts. In the article's current state I'd agree it might be hovering on the border of UNDUE, while in the state it might be in five minutes from now I think it would be DUE.

3564:. Why are you giving such a prominent place to a relative minority of the sources here? And if that minority of sources is to be given such prominence, then do you have any objection to adding "newspaper reporter", "newspaper editor", "radio commentator" etc? Per RS? -- 3442:

So why are Knowledge editors so hot to put her back down? It just looks like an attempt to take someone's accomplishments away, to make them seem like imposters. It looks like an attempt to magnify this period of work from 2010 through ~2017, to lower her status. Why?

3184:

to cite, then it can be acceptable to mention it, but not as long as the Herzog post from The Stranger is the main source. The problem I have is that when you subtract what Herzog says about it, we don't have other sources saying this incident matters much if at all.

2013:

This side story does not add to the article and as it is a biography of a living person, I think it should be left out for now. It can be re-examined in light post-publication of the memoir if the story's relevance is elevated through other secondary sources.

1560:. In 2009, she left a grocery store with a bottle of wine she did not pay for. She took an agreement with the court to have the city dismiss the theft charges. She later became sober and explained to an interviewer how her writing suffered when she was drunk. 3023:. Unfortunately, for the subject of a BLP to simply declare — without evidence — that a fairly established journalist has a history of bias against him/herself is not sufficient to obfuscate properly sourced facts from a BLP. If it were, our articles on 3147:. If there were more than one source quoting or citing this as evidence it would be credible enough to be added to this article, but in general it doesn't add anything substantial or informational to this article other than creating added controversy. 1162:

You make a, partially, valuable point. I added "Barnett is an alcoholic" in keeping with my understanding that alcoholism is an incurable disease as opposed to a lifestyle choice and this is the verbiage preferred by medicine and alcoholics themselves

1138:). Just as editors can argue that their statement is strictly, technically correct or is backed up by some Knowledge rule, please note the urgent and important tone of the BLP page, indicating that NPOV and balance take precedence on BLP pages. 2403:

policy. You have to get it exactly right, and you have to be certain your sources are bulletproof. The only real way to proceed is explain what you want to do on the talk page and ensure you have consensus. Policy on living persons requires

2533:

I think everyone here needs to cool off. This isn't a race. It might take a few weeks or months to get the article right, and that's okay. Obviously, the subject of this article making direct edits and pursuing an off-wiki dialog isn't the

1179:

As I assume this is directed towards me, I should clarify I'd never heard of Erica Barnett prior to three days ago. During the course of routine BLP patrolling I came across an article that seemed like it might merit deletion for lack of

1127:. The short version: neutral point of view (NPOV) is a bedrock principle of Knowledge, and in a biography of a living person, editors need to maintain NPOV with extra caution. "Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." 3481:. (A "blog" is simply a website with posts displayed in reverse chronological order, which lacks a gatekeeping process, and which often allows comments. "Blog" does not mean "sub-par news website" as you seem to believe when you say 2349:

I could answer that so much faster if "katie herzog hit piece" didn't return so many Google hits on so many subjects. That alone is reason to find literally anybody else to cite on a BLP. Controversial content on living people needs

1053: 2443:

cautious, conservative state, avoiding controversy and negative attacks, and sticking with well-sourced facts. The burden is on you to state here why you need this article to take a more critical attitude towards its subject. --

3435:, worked freelance, worked in new media, and founded her own startup sites, publicola.net and thecisforcrank.com, and in the early years was sometimes called a blogger, but more recently, and more consistently journalist. 2296:

difficult to edit Knowledge when one has a conflict. Other editors take a microscope to everything you do, and you have to second guess every choice. I would advise anyone to choose a different topic. But it is allowed.

164: 1331:

Would you both pause for a second and read what you've written? The malicious animus of these edits is obvious, and the solution should be just to leave the article alone, rather than include this "extrapolation."

2092:(original nom) above. I see no good reason to exclude it. I don't think we need to mention more than a sentence or two, and it doesn't need to be in the Lede or even the initial paragraph or anything; however, to 2461:. Why is it OK for Cptnono to unilaterally revert sourced content intended to balance out the pure hit-piece version that they prefer, when it's not OK for the rest of us to revert obviously bad faith editing? 3269:

Omit. I'm going on it just seems not a BLP significant event. If it was preface that led to a career shift or criminal charge or some other impact yes, but on its own it seems just a gossipy tidbit. Cheers

3396: 211: 3477:

I don't share your opinion that being a blogger is somehow shameful. There's nothing wrong or insulting about being a blogger; the subject of this article has even described her own website as a "blog"

2302:. Any content about living persons is held to a much higher standard than other Knowledge content, and anything controversial or potentially negative which is not extremely well sourced must be " 3393: 1235: 1196:

coverage of a subject is included. NPOV does not mean only flattering coverage of a subject is included. BLPs on Knowledge fill a different role than bios on book jackets or personal websites.

2966: 1828:- just a heads-up that the page has stabilized a bit now and the article ballooned to three times the size it was when you originally cast your !vote. Since your !vote seemed to be based on 4029: 3650: 3341:

I'm only saying that with an article in early stages of development, it's nothing to panic over. It doesn't demand immediate action to stave off the death of Knowledge or anything. --

2354:, not reporters with spotty records. Very often Knowledge articles simply fail to even mention low-level controversies on bio pages, because we err on the side of caution, always. -- 689: 3663:

newspapers, and on the radio. So why only blogger and not the others? And why can't we keep it simple and say journalist, since in all of these media, she was doing journalism? --

2706: 1433: 279: 3659:

You did this at the AfD page and you're losing that debate. It's not helping. It's also not scaring me off. It doesn't work, and it's going to blow up in your face. Quit it.

2150:, I don't feel a mere tweet of this type rises to the level of meatpuppetry. It is the reasonable reaction from a person dissatisfied with their WP entry and we should note 4094: 706: 158: 3907:, I decided to add up my "thanks" from the Thanks log, and it looks like I've given out ~1400 since May 2018; however, ~1399 of those were handed out since August 2019. 3416: 2137:"the assholes who keep vandalizing my Knowledge page ... i feel very sad for you, that all you have time to do with your lives is anonymously harass a female journalist" 3726: 239: 4084: 4009: 2994:, particularly since the article is essentially a month-by-month account of her writing highlights. It is a factual statement that the subject wrote an article for 594: 2998:

and that this article was subsequently retracted. To obfuscate factual content that the subject of the article may find unflattering pushes this into the realm of

4074: 4024: 879: 869: 742: 732: 3485:

and having a blog is not disreputable.) Also, we go by what RS say. We have multiple RS that identify her as a blogger. I don't share your opinion that 2017 is

3994: 3989: 3969: 3678:

Once again, no one has threatened you and no one is out to "get" you. There are no conspiracies in which you are the target. Please just chill out a little.

284: 1273:). I have, therefore, undone your edits to this article. If you disagree and believe that even this reversal is vandalism, you are free to file a report at 4089: 4079: 4064: 4039: 3984: 766: 696: 600: 267:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 1930:

tag and the next timestamp after that. The refs in the statement of this RfC occupy 1,459 bytes of Wikitext, and that takes the RfC statement beyond what

2313:

So you can't have a bunch of dirt about somebody until you've written a comprehensive survey of their entire public life. Attack pages are never allowed.

2151: 1945: 90: 3860:, Oh, thanks for clarifying. Like you, I am very liberal in my 'thank yous'. Still, while it's not an indication of explicit support, it's also not an 3380:

We're back to what kind of appears to be an attempt to diminish and trivialize Barnett's work by demoting her from a journalist to a mere blogger, in

3058: 4054: 4044: 4014: 1948:

other than the two links near the bottom; and if this situation persists for the next twelve hours or so, these RfCs will also not be publicised to

845: 790: 701: 55: 3402: 4069: 4019: 3979: 2400: 2299: 1049: 377: 259: 3055: 3016:. While a detailed rationale for this removal was not contained in the edit history, Ericacbarnett previously expressed concern on her Talk page 3358:

There is a discussion concerning this article above, maybe it would be better to put it there - to see the picture in whole. Too many issues) --

2680:

consensus to establish that BLP violations have taken place — if this fails to happen, the invocation of BLP may be seen to be unsubstantiated.

1198:

Aside from that, the other substantive edit I made to this page was to remove an in-body link in the first sentence of the article inserted by

4059: 570: 96: 4034: 4004: 2830:

of encouraging listeners to harass a city council member after a contentious sports vote eliminating the possibility of a new sports arena.

2553:

giving undue weight to negative content, and deleting positive content. If it wasn't living person, we could take our time. On a BLP? No --

381: 1192:

and added it. The fact Barnett may have not found these particular stories flattering was not part of my thought process. NPOV means all

3999: 3974: 3389: 1002: 836: 813: 672: 623: 1723: 925: 902: 684: 385: 1239: 4049: 3949: 2715: 1442: 376:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3398: 2617:

it to the version before the blocked editor edit warred. The content I added is directly reflected in the sources, as required by

2745: 1472: 761: 628: 561: 525: 460: 3391: 3046: 1135: 986: 372: 336: 179: 110: 41: 3504:

characterized my words in that way. For the second time, please don't cast aspersions or mischaracterize my words or editing.

3407: 2292: 978: 146: 115: 31: 3410: 2049:

Left out. Seems kind of contrary to BLPCRIME, and a bit pointless unless it is tied into some actual life impact. Cheers

680:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

3060:. The source is skunked. Whatever is going on, this person is not a reliable source to cite for negative content in a BLP. 2263: 2256:

Why don't you just make this page go back to the way it was 2 weeks ago and lock it for a while to let everyone cool off.

1941: 785: 632: 85: 3404: 2158:

effect, even if unintentional, and the template may be useful in introducing newly created editors to our discussion and

3923: 3894: 3825: 3777: 3654: 3419: 2876: 2112: 1106: 1072: 1045: 311: 2928: 1125:

Please read the biographies of living persons (BLPs) page linked from the banner at the top of this page before posting

3320: 3152: 2731: 1458: 930: 451: 424: 76: 3878:'s name because I have a lot of respect for template editors. So anyway, that's why I refer to you as administrator. 3840:. Obviously I can't stop you if you'd prefer to do so, but you just might find it a bit less to type by omitting it! 3229:

procedures yet, but most, if not all, sources in article are either primary or passing/tangential mentions. Nothing

1188:, I googled the individual's name and immediately found reporting on the subject that enabled this BLP to crest the 3733:. This should serve as a functional reminder prior to the article being submitted for consideration as part of the 2585:

it's big plans for neighborhood meetings on Nextdoor. She was exactly right about the state's open meetings law. --

1068: 502: 2704:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

2273:

She has gone too far. The article now reads like an expanded upon resume. I am reverting and the next step is ANI.

1431:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

828: 807: 140: 3668: 3618: 3569: 3533: 3467: 3346: 3190: 3131: 3068: 3057:

Herzog joked, or "joked" that "Stranger staff writer Katie Herzog regrets not blocking Erica C. Barnett sooner."

2626: 2590: 2558: 2448: 2413: 2359: 2322: 235: 207: 3400: 2246:

I don't like it that Erica C. Barnett is editing her own page. Or at least a user with her name is doing it.

1052:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been 3103: 3008: 2961: 2524: 2496: 2466: 2307: 1647: 1369: 1337: 1167: 1095: 3613:

there's nothing to say, and I'll proceed as discussed unless any other editor has something relevant to add. -

2259: 2505:

how about you propose an alternative. I added sources and even removed the line. What the fuck have you done?

1922:, it is the sheer length of the Wikitext in the RfC statement - that is, the content that occurs between the 1652: 136: 1259: 1102: 996: 982: 268: 120: 3395:, all of them from 2019. We don't need to stop there. Many further examples could be added, all form 2019: 3715: 3316: 3148: 2957:"After Defamation Suits and a Surprise Cancellation, Former KIRO Radio Hosts Ron and Don Launch a Podcast" 2777: 2213:- I think you left this in the wrong section. I'd GF move it but I'm not clear where it's supposed to go. 1504: 1060: 443: 418: 3422: 2310:

normally allows an unbalanced article to be tagged for expansion and left in a NPOV state, but not a BLP.

1071:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

3946: 3432: 3363: 3275: 3087: 2999: 2812: 2129: 2054: 1917: 1539: 1255: 1199: 992: 841: 317: 186: 3592:"do you have any objection to adding "newspaper reporter", "newspaper editor", "radio commentator" etc" 3590:

to be represented and does not differentiate majority, minority, or plurality views. To your question,

3177: 3271: 2050: 3664: 3614: 3565: 3529: 3463: 3342: 3324: 3288: 3214: 3186: 3144: 3127: 3064: 2761: 2735: 2622: 2586: 2554: 2444: 2409: 2355: 2318: 2144: 1865: 1800: 1488: 1462: 1231: 664: 429: 278:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3598:

in the extreme. You'll have to judge for yourself whether or not that would be a wise edit to make.

3091: 3063:

We don't put negative content into a BLP without a reason. Just because we can isn't good enough. --

3053: 2635:

First, I have no problem with with the content you added. Second, I don't think anyone is trying to

299: 228: 200: 3848: 3687: 3636: 3603: 3551: 3494: 3256: 3116: 3036: 2892: 2720: 2644: 2604: 2575: 2543: 2520: 2492: 2462: 2380: 2340: 2218: 2167: 2159: 2019: 1997: 1974: 1960: 1886: 1837: 1816: 1780: 1576: 1447: 1398: 1383: 1365: 1346: 1333: 1307: 1299: 1213: 1064: 172: 66: 844:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

569:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

459:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3594:, I'll defer comment except to say such an edit — within the context of the preceding — would be 3520: 3489:. However, if it helps, I've added an RS from 2019 that also describes her as a blogger. Thanks. 2767: 2698: 2618: 2072: 1616: 1494: 1425: 282:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 81: 2333:"The Katie Herzog article in The Stranger has been called a hit piece by more than one observer" 648: 617: 2838:

As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be

1091:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

3519:

In short, I favor just having "journalist" in the infobox. Short, accurate, not disputed. Per

3296: 2921:"'Atlantic' issues correction after accusing Ron and Don of verbally attacking council member" 2827: 2510: 2482: 2433: 2278: 2201: 2155: 2040: 1935: 1557: 1322: 1170: 1164: 1148: 553: 152: 62: 3941: 3915: 3886: 3875: 3817: 3769: 3595: 3561: 3525:"wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." 3459: 3359: 3238: 3226: 3222: 3095: 2868: 2104: 1354: 1185: 364: 35: 1169:. To say ""Barnett had been an alcoholic" suggests Barnett had been cured which would be a 17: 3646: 3428: 2991: 2823: 2399:

I would strongly advice anyone wishing to add controversial content to carefully read the

2032: 1876: 1859: 1825: 1794: 1772: 275: 3462:

alone favors the 10+ sources, all recent, rather than the 3-4ish few, some quite old. --

3111:

show. If you're going to call her "unreliable" you'll need more than a blog as evidence.

2519:

The alternative is Dennis Bratland's version, which is much better and more informative.

2249:

I get she doesn't like the vandalism and appreciate the reverts. But she is also making

2181:

Misplaced comment by an editor now unable to move it to appropriate section; GF collapsed

1687: 3904: 3857: 3844: 3796: 3683: 3632: 3599: 3547: 3490: 3385: 3252: 3206: 3112: 3086:

between Katie Herzog and Erica C. Barnett are Erica C. Barnett's own blog which is not

3032: 2888: 2677: 2640: 2600: 2571: 2539: 2376: 2336: 2214: 2163: 2089: 2015: 1990: 1970: 1953: 1903: 1882: 1847: 1833: 1812: 1776: 1718: 1572: 1394: 1379: 1303: 1290: 1209: 3963: 3753: 3745: 3734: 3583: 3544:"You haven't given any explanation for why her occupation must say "blogger" at all." 3447: 3332: 3176:

them. The NYT recently did a highly sympathetic article portraying Katie Herzog as a

3168: 3003: 2853: 2085: 2068: 1949: 1855: 1851: 1829: 1274: 1205: 1193: 1189: 1152: 677: 2031:

A minor infraction, later dismissed in court, committed 10 years ago, seems totally

1037: 3870:

Now, to be fair, I don't preface editors with page mover privileges as "page mover

3292: 3287:

If the article ever gets out of draft. As it stands now, i dont believe it passes

3099: 3028: 3024: 3013: 2795: 2783: 2751: 2506: 2478: 2429: 2372: 2274: 2210: 2197: 2036: 1931: 1925: 1749: 1522: 1510: 1478: 1318: 1270: 775: 1005:) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ( 751: 3679: 3627: 3591: 3579: 3543: 3486: 3482: 3083: 3045:"Katie Herzog is arguably Seattle's most controversial contemporary editorialist" 3020: 2730:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

2636: 2567: 2368: 2332: 2140: 2136: 1761: 1753: 1543: 1457:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1281: 1176: 3908: 3879: 3810: 3762: 3511:

accomplishments, while adding negative content, such as alcoholism, or when you

3234: 3049: 2861: 2097: 1748:

and acknowledged by the subject herself, and documented in multiple independent

1553: 1350: 1295: 1181: 1101:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —

917: 896: 348: 330: 2990:(but clean-up tense and grammar) These 39 words in a 440 word article are not 2538:

helpful contribution, but these things tend to run out of steam on their own.

1679: 1269:

I only see a content dispute between a COI editor (you) and a non-COI editor (

654: 566: 543: 537: 519: 354: 3338:, or just let it go until somebody comes along to finish writing the article. 2477:

chill out. This article should be deleted anyway. This is not a cover letter.

977:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

3427:

She was a newspaper reporter (journalist), form 2000 to 2009, and after the

3415:

Examples of her being called a blogger date waaaay back to 2012, 7 years ago

3021:" a writer who has a long and public history of personal attacks against me" 2681: 676:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 3954: 3928: 3899: 3852: 3830: 3782: 3691: 3672: 3640: 3622: 3607: 3573: 3555: 3537: 3498: 3471: 3367: 3350: 3300: 3279: 3260: 3242: 3194: 3156: 3135: 3120: 3072: 3040: 2896: 2881: 2684: 2648: 2630: 2608: 2594: 2579: 2562: 2547: 2528: 2514: 2500: 2486: 2470: 2452: 2437: 2428:

fine. I removed a single sentance in the spirit of BLP. Stop edit warring.

2417: 2384: 2363: 2344: 2326: 2282: 2267: 2222: 2205: 2171: 2117: 2076: 2058: 2044: 2023: 2001: 1978: 1964: 1890: 1870: 1841: 1820: 1805: 1784: 1580: 1402: 1387: 1373: 1358: 1341: 1326: 1311: 1263: 1243: 1217: 1156: 1110: 485: 3802:

me for adding this talkpage section, which is indicative of no objection

2139:

which was followed by several "@" mentions from her followers seeking to

2568:"You want to insult a living person, calling a journalist a mere blogger 2924: 1757: 1285: 1087:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

1048:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about

3388:. So we had three footnotes supporting the job title of "journalist", 3090:

and KUOW which — on examination — actually says nothing of the sort

2135:

just sent out by the subject of this article in which she addresses

3725:

I've added the {{Notability}} tag atop this draft article, per the

1714:"Stranger News Editor Erica C. Barnett took a deal this morning to" 1349:, your edit went too far. Maybe y'all should take this up at BLPN. 384:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 3809:. I thought it would be important to let the record reflect that. 456: 1969:

Thanks for catching! Those were a mess and I've moved them down.

1615:(Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from 2690:

RfC: Two sentences regarding a retracted article in The Atlantic

2599:

I don't follow. That seems to be exactly what the article says.

2317:

incident appears to have amounted to a lot of nothing anyway. --

1228:

Might be a mean question, but what's she done that's notable?

3657:

that this kind of thing isn't tolerated. Stop, and do no more.

3108: 2693: 2369:"so many Google hits on so many subjects. That alone is reason 2148: 1420: 1032: 1016: 975:

contributor has declared a personal or professional connection

962: 293: 274:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

251: 223: 195: 26: 3874:", but have at times, prefaced "template editor" in front of 3479: 2956: 2920: 2133: 1765: 1713: 1642: 1608: 1177:"Ms Barnett seems to inspire strong feelings in some people." 3799: 3251:

Agreed. Deleting the article entirely may be the best move.

3019:

that one of the sources used in this section was written by

2724:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2132:

to the above RfC to get ahead of the curve based on a tweet

1451:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 774: 750: 484: 3795:

with an expression of support or opposition, administrator

3319:

nomination, rather than a stub, one might object that it's

2298:

In this case, we have a more important policy to consider:

929:

project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please

1059:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

2128:

For purposes of clarification, I should note I added the

3651:

Knowledge:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point

1298:. You will probably, therefore, find our discussion and 3512: 3381: 3315:

now have three and even four footnotes. If this were a

3312: 3093:. Katie Herzog is a mainstream journalist published in 3017: 2826:

later in 2016, she erroneously accused Seattle radio's

2816: 2614: 2458: 1985: 1910: 1546: 1378:

I'm in agreement that this was not done in good faith.

1278: 1202: 1006: 3418:, and a couple kind of a little more recent, from 2016 2856:

prematurely closed by Legobot when the page closed as

2639:. I'm sorry we seem to have difficulty communicating. 2304:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

171: 1542:

removed the following section of this article due to

923:

This article was created or improved as part of the

2147:

of the subject of this article was recently blocked

933:

regarding their contributions before making changes.

840:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 565:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 455:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3723:

A quick update to the regular editors of this page:

1284:but, in fact, blank a paragraph that is sourced to 1254:This article is currently the target of vandalism. 1544:"inaccurate information and unsourced speculation" 599:This article has not yet received a rating on the 1756:. Indeed, one of the very sources (NPR affiliate 1602: 1600: 1598: 4030:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 3454:an independent journalist. We have a handful of 3209:U.S. blogger and regional radio personality. As 1944:) can handle. That is why nothing is showing at 1707: 1705: 1636: 1634: 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3406:. Etc. It goes on and on. "Reporter" comes up: 2915: 2913: 2911: 2820: 1550: 3560:I don't see how that jibes with the policy of 3012:has been previously described by consensus as 1302:process a more constructive approach. Thanks. 2744:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 2714:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 1609:"A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars" 1471:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 1441:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 185: 8: 3450:policy. We have copious sources who say she 1760:) blanked by the subject of this article as 1564:This section, as of datestamp, is currently 1294:. That seems to be a more clear-cut case of 3050:Aziz Ansari#Allegation of sexual misconduct 2950: 2948: 2946: 2718:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2176: 2152:Knowledge:Please do not bite the newcomers 1946:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Biographies 1769:A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery 1767:. In fact, her forthcoming book is titled 1445:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 1229: 891: 802: 612: 514: 413: 325: 4095:Articles edited by connected contributors 3458:sources that used to call her a blogger. 1914:- the problem is not the position of the 1686:. Seattle Municipal Court. Archived from 3446:I don't think it is consistent with the 3323:and that the footnotes should either be 2738:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 2457:I invite anyone coming to this later to 2242:Is it appropriate to edit your own page? 1465:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 3864:to including the Notability tag, right? 2907: 2401:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons 2300:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons 2179: 1764:was highlighted by her on her own blog 1594: 893: 804: 614: 516: 415: 327: 297: 4085:WikiProject Women in Red 2019 articles 4010:Unknown-importance Journalism articles 1680:"Defendant:BARNETT, ERICA Case:533850" 1552:Barnett grew up in Texas and idolized 4075:Low-importance Women writers articles 4025:Low-importance United States articles 1674: 1672: 1670: 1417:RfC: Sentences on journey to sobriety 1236:2603:3023:886:D000:D16:E83F:D1F8:1D01 7: 3048:Barnett and Herzog feuded over the 2124:Clarification: Not a ballot template 2096:it is both disgenuous and skewed. -- 1607:Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). 834:This article is within the scope of 670:This article is within the scope of 559:This article is within the scope of 449:This article is within the scope of 370:This article is within the scope of 3995:Knowledge requested images of women 3990:All WikiProject Women-related pages 3970:Biography articles of living people 3727:result of the recent AfD discussion 2676:Just a reminder that you will need 854:Knowledge:WikiProject Women writers 717:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 34:for discussing improvements to the 4090:All WikiProject Women in Red pages 4080:WikiProject Women writers articles 4065:WikiProject United States articles 4040:Low-importance Washington articles 3985:C-Class WikiProject Women articles 3752:this and we can initiate a 30-day 3714:Addition of the Notability tag to 2834:retracted the story shortly after. 2815:blanked a section of this article 1832:I thought I'd ping you as an FYI. 1570:Should it be restored or left out? 1050:living or recently deceased people 939:Knowledge:WikiProject Women in Red 857:Template:WikiProject Women writers 720:Template:WikiProject United States 238:on 6 November 2019. The result of 25: 942:Template:WikiProject Women in Red 2697: 2491:Obviously. Bad. Faith. Editing. 1712:Onstat, Laura (March 17, 2019). 1424: 1134:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy ( 1036: 1020: 966: 916: 895: 827: 806: 786:WikiProject Washington - Seattle 657: 647: 616: 579:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism 546: 536: 518: 493:An editor has requested that an 442: 428: 417: 357: 347: 329: 298: 257:This article must adhere to the 227: 199: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 4055:Low-importance Seattle articles 4045:WikiProject Washington articles 4015:WikiProject Journalism articles 3649:behavior. That guideline page, 2154:. Nonetheless, this may have a 1641:Barnett, Erica (May 18, 2009). 874:This article has been rated as 737:This article has been rated as 582:Template:WikiProject Journalism 394:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 234:This article was nominated for 210:on 15 June 2020. The result of 206:This article was nominated for 4070:C-Class Women writers articles 4020:C-Class United States articles 3980:WikiProject Biography articles 2955:Herzog, Katie (July 3, 2019). 2927:. May 24, 2016. Archived from 2293:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 1218:15:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 1157:15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 1121:me to post on this talk page. 1111:12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 397:Template:WikiProject Biography 316:It is of interest to multiple 1: 3939: 3692:19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3673:05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3641:05:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3628:"Some kind of veiled threat?" 3623:03:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3608:01:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3574:01:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3556:00:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 3538:23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 3499:19:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 3472:02:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) 3368:11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 3351:00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC) 3280:13:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) 3031:would read very differently. 2734:on the part of others and to 2637:"trash somebody's reputation" 2077:05:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 2059:13:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) 2045:20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 1461:on the part of others and to 1073:contentious topics procedures 848:and see a list of open tasks. 783:This article is supported by 759:This article is supported by 573:and see a list of open tasks. 463:and see a list of open tasks. 260:biographies of living persons 53:Put new text under old text. 4060:WikiProject Seattle articles 3955:11:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 3929:00:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 3900:23:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3853:23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3831:22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3783:22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3546:Because that's what RS say. 3301:15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 3261:20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC) 3243:19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) 3195:17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 3157:14:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 3136:15:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 3121:07:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 3073:07:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 3041:07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2897:07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2882:23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 2685:07:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2649:06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2631:06:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2609:06:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2595:06:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2580:06:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2563:06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2548:06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2529:06:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2515:06:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2501:05:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2487:05:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2471:05:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2453:05:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2438:05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2418:05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2385:06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2364:05:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2345:05:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2327:05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2283:05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2268:02:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2223:06:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2206:05:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2172:02:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2118:01:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC) 2024:19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 2002:20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1979:17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1965:16:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1891:07:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1881:! Thanks for checking back. 1871:07:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1842:06:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1821:06:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1806:06:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1785:01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1581:01:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1403:01:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1388:00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 1374:23:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1359:23:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1342:23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1327:22:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1312:19:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1264:03:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 1244:20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC) 382:contribute to the discussion 4035:C-Class Washington articles 4005:C-Class Journalism articles 3307:Citation overkill on a stub 3182:other, high-quality sources 469:Knowledge:WikiProject Women 272:must be removed immediately 61:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 18:Draft talk:Erica C. Barnett 4111: 4000:WikiProject Women articles 3975:C-Class biography articles 3588:all significant viewpoints 3433:2009 decline of newspapers 3424:. I can't find many more. 2406:when in doubt leave it out 880:project's importance scale 743:project's importance scale 601:project's importance scale 475:WikiProject Women articles 472:Template:WikiProject Women 3836:preface my username with 3580:"minority of the sources" 3078:She wrote an article for 1075:before editing this page. 1031: 911: 873: 837:WikiProject Women writers 822: 782: 758: 736: 673:WikiProject United States 642: 598: 531: 492: 437: 342: 324: 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 4050:C-Class Seattle articles 3756:process, as needed. : ) 3178:victim of cancel culture 2613:Now it does, after El C 1983:Thanks for fixing both, 1277:. However, in this edit 1069:normal editorial process 973:The following Knowledge 678:United States of America 2776:; accounts blocked for 2746:single-purpose accounts 2716:policies and guidelines 2459:look at the last revert 1762:"unsourced speculation" 1754:"unsourced speculation" 1643:"A Note to Our Readers" 1503:; accounts blocked for 1473:single-purpose accounts 1443:policies and guidelines 1282:"unsourced speculation" 1056:as a contentious topic. 1027:Other talk page banners 3716:Draft:Erica C. Barnett 3311:Some sentences in the 3167:Keep in mind that the 2836: 1562: 1136:It's an official rule! 1065:standards of behaviour 860:Women writers articles 779: 762:WikiProject Washington 755: 723:United States articles 562:WikiProject Journalism 489: 306:This article is rated 86:avoid personal attacks 3746:bold, revert, discuss 2130:Template:Not a ballot 987:neutral point of view 945:Women in Red articles 778: 754: 488: 373:WikiProject Biography 111:Neutral point of view 3562:Due and undue weight 3223:significant coverage 3145:User:Dennis Bratland 3126:make no difference. 1280:you claim to remove 1204:in violation of our 1116:Please maintain NPOV 1061:purpose of Knowledge 979:conflict of interest 665:United States portal 116:No original research 2969:on October 26, 2019 2931:on October 26, 2019 2728:by counting votes. 2707:not a majority vote 2260:ConfirmedToBeAHorse 2196:be deleted anyways. 1726:on October 26, 2019 1690:on October 26, 2019 1655:on October 26, 2019 1619:on October 26, 2019 1455:by counting votes. 1434:not a majority vote 691:Articles Requested! 585:Journalism articles 3655:taken a firm stand 3645:You accused me of 3578:First, it's not a 3521:MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE 3171:policy applies to 2828:Ron & Don Show 2822:While writing for 1986:this is the effect 1911:these re-additions 1540:User:Ericacbarnett 1300:consensus building 1103:Community Tech bot 1046:contentious topics 780: 756: 490: 400:biography articles 312:content assessment 97:dispute resolution 58: 3843: 3321:citation overkill 3149:Pedestrianswimmer 2809: 2808: 2805: 2732:assume good faith 2308:WP:Editing policy 2251:editorial changes 2238: 2237: 1558:Hunter S Thompson 1536: 1535: 1532: 1459:assume good faith 1250:Vandalism warning 1246: 1234:comment added by 1096:Erica Barnett.jpg 1084: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1015: 1014: 961: 960: 957: 956: 953: 952: 931:assume good faith 890: 889: 886: 885: 801: 800: 797: 796: 611: 610: 607: 606: 554:Journalism portal 513: 512: 509: 508: 452:WikiProject Women 412: 411: 408: 407: 292: 291: 250: 249: 222: 221: 194: 193: 77:Assume good faith 54: 16:(Redirected from 4102: 3953: 3926: 3918: 3897: 3889: 3841: 3828: 3820: 3791:While he didn't 3780: 3772: 3729:which closed as 3681: 3629: 3593: 3581: 3545: 3488: 3484: 3409:. And "editor": 3337: 3331: 3107:and who hosts a 3085: 3022: 2979: 2978: 2976: 2974: 2965:. Archived from 2952: 2941: 2940: 2938: 2936: 2917: 2879: 2871: 2803: 2791: 2775: 2759: 2740: 2710:, but instead a 2701: 2694: 2638: 2569: 2370: 2352:the best sources 2334: 2177: 2142: 2138: 2115: 2107: 2067:been reverted. 1993: 1988: 1956: 1929: 1921: 1913: 1907: 1850:, it was partly 1763: 1755: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1731: 1722:. Archived from 1709: 1700: 1699: 1697: 1695: 1676: 1665: 1664: 1662: 1660: 1651:. Archived from 1638: 1629: 1628: 1626: 1624: 1604: 1568:in the article. 1545: 1530: 1518: 1502: 1486: 1467: 1437:, but instead a 1428: 1421: 1283: 1178: 1040: 1033: 1024: 1023: 1017: 970: 969: 963: 947: 946: 943: 940: 937: 920: 913: 912: 907: 899: 892: 862: 861: 858: 855: 852: 831: 824: 823: 818: 810: 803: 725: 724: 721: 718: 715: 667: 662: 661: 660: 651: 644: 643: 638: 635: 620: 613: 587: 586: 583: 580: 577: 556: 551: 550: 549: 540: 533: 532: 522: 515: 505:to this article. 477: 476: 473: 470: 467: 446: 439: 438: 433: 432: 431: 421: 414: 402: 401: 398: 395: 392: 378:join the project 367: 365:Biography portal 362: 361: 360: 351: 344: 343: 333: 326: 309: 303: 302: 294: 280:this noticeboard 252: 231: 224: 203: 196: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 36:Erica C. Barnett 27: 21: 4110: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4101: 4100: 4099: 3960: 3959: 3922: 3914: 3893: 3885: 3824: 3816: 3776: 3768: 3720: 3680:"you're losing" 3665:Dennis Bratland 3615:Dennis Bratland 3566:Dennis Bratland 3530:Dennis Bratland 3464:Dennis Bratland 3429:Great Recession 3378: 3343:Dennis Bratland 3335: 3329: 3313:current version 3309: 3225:. Haven't done 3187:Dennis Bratland 3128:Dennis Bratland 3065:Dennis Bratland 2984: 2983: 2982: 2972: 2970: 2954: 2953: 2944: 2934: 2932: 2919: 2918: 2909: 2875: 2867: 2824:TheAtlantic.com 2793: 2781: 2765: 2749: 2736:sign your posts 2692: 2678:BLP noticeboard 2623:Dennis Bratland 2615:kindly restored 2587:Dennis Bratland 2555:Dennis Bratland 2445:Dennis Bratland 2410:Dennis Bratland 2371:No. Please see 2356:Dennis Bratland 2319:Dennis Bratland 2244: 2239: 2182: 2126: 2111: 2103: 1991: 1984: 1954: 1952:subscribers. -- 1923: 1915: 1909: 1901: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1729: 1727: 1711: 1710: 1703: 1693: 1691: 1678: 1677: 1668: 1658: 1656: 1640: 1639: 1632: 1622: 1620: 1606: 1605: 1596: 1538:On October 26, 1520: 1508: 1492: 1476: 1463:sign your posts 1419: 1252: 1226: 1145:Happy editing, 1118: 1089: 1063:, any expected 1021: 967: 944: 941: 938: 935: 934: 905: 859: 856: 853: 850: 849: 816: 722: 719: 716: 713: 712: 711: 697:Become a Member 663: 658: 656: 636: 626: 584: 581: 578: 575: 574: 552: 547: 545: 474: 471: 468: 465: 464: 427: 399: 396: 393: 390: 389: 363: 358: 356: 310:on Knowledge's 307: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4108: 4106: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4087: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4067: 4062: 4057: 4052: 4047: 4042: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4022: 4017: 4012: 4007: 4002: 3997: 3992: 3987: 3982: 3977: 3972: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3902: 3867: 3865: 3760: 3744:, please, per 3719: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3377: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3282: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3246: 3245: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3088:WP:INDEPENDENT 3043: 3000:WP:PROMOTIONAL 2981: 2980: 2942: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2899: 2886: 2885: 2811:On October 26 2807: 2806: 2702: 2691: 2688: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2531: 2521:lethargilistic 2493:lethargilistic 2475: 2474: 2473: 2463:lethargilistic 2455: 2421: 2420: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2286: 2285: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2175: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2079: 2061: 2047: 2026: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1823: 1787: 1752:, constitutes 1738: 1737: 1719:Seattle Weekly 1701: 1666: 1630: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1534: 1533: 1429: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1390: 1366:lethargilistic 1347:lethargilistic 1344: 1334:lethargilistic 1291:Seattle Weekly 1251: 1248: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1197: 1175: 1117: 1114: 1099: 1098: 1088: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1041: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 971: 959: 958: 955: 954: 951: 950: 948: 921: 909: 908: 900: 888: 887: 884: 883: 876:Low-importance 872: 866: 865: 863: 846:the discussion 832: 820: 819: 817:Low‑importance 811: 799: 798: 795: 794: 791:Low-importance 781: 771: 770: 767:Low-importance 757: 747: 746: 739:Low-importance 735: 729: 728: 726: 710: 709: 704: 699: 694: 687: 685:Template Usage 681: 669: 668: 652: 640: 639: 637:Low‑importance 621: 609: 608: 605: 604: 597: 591: 590: 588: 571:the discussion 558: 557: 541: 529: 528: 523: 511: 510: 507: 506: 491: 481: 480: 478: 461:the discussion 447: 435: 434: 422: 410: 409: 406: 405: 403: 369: 368: 352: 340: 339: 334: 322: 321: 315: 304: 290: 289: 285:this help page 269:poorly sourced 255: 248: 247: 240:the discussion 232: 220: 219: 212:the discussion 204: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4107: 4096: 4093: 4091: 4088: 4086: 4083: 4081: 4078: 4076: 4073: 4071: 4068: 4066: 4063: 4061: 4058: 4056: 4053: 4051: 4048: 4046: 4043: 4041: 4038: 4036: 4033: 4031: 4028: 4026: 4023: 4021: 4018: 4016: 4013: 4011: 4008: 4006: 4003: 4001: 3998: 3996: 3993: 3991: 3988: 3986: 3983: 3981: 3978: 3976: 3973: 3971: 3968: 3967: 3965: 3956: 3951: 3948: 3945: 3944: 3936: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3919: 3917: 3912: 3911: 3906: 3903: 3901: 3898: 3896: 3890: 3888: 3883: 3882: 3877: 3873: 3868: 3866: 3863: 3859: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3839: 3838:administrator 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3821: 3819: 3814: 3813: 3808: 3806: 3801: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3781: 3779: 3773: 3771: 3766: 3765: 3757: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3738: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3718:draft article 3717: 3713: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3589: 3585: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3526: 3522: 3517: 3514: 3508: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3487:"waaaay back" 3480: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3423: 3420: 3417: 3413: 3411: 3408: 3405: 3403: 3401: 3399: 3397: 3394: 3392: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3375: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3339: 3334: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289:WP:Notability 3286: 3283: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3268: 3267: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215:WP:Notability 3212: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3201: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3179: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3089: 3081: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3059: 3056: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2986: 2985: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2958: 2951: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2916: 2914: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2883: 2880: 2878: 2872: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2845: 2841: 2835: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2813:Ericacbarnett 2801: 2797: 2789: 2785: 2779: 2773: 2769: 2763: 2757: 2753: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2737: 2733: 2727: 2723: 2722: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2689: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2253:to the page. 2252: 2247: 2241: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156:WP:CANVASSing 2153: 2149: 2146: 2145:WP:MEATPUPPET 2143:etc. While a 2134: 2131: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2114: 2108: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2009: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1927: 1919: 1912: 1905: 1900: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1875:Makes sense, 1874: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1791: 1788: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1759: 1751: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1708: 1706: 1702: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1675: 1673: 1671: 1667: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1644: 1637: 1635: 1631: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1603: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1549: 1547: 1541: 1528: 1524: 1516: 1512: 1506: 1500: 1496: 1490: 1484: 1480: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1464: 1460: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1430: 1427: 1423: 1422: 1416: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256:Ericacbarnett 1249: 1247: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1201: 1200:Ericacbarnett 1195: 1191: 1187: 1184:. As part of 1183: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1137: 1132: 1128: 1126: 1122: 1115: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1086: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1019: 1018: 1008: 1007:declared here 1004: 1001: 998: 994: 993:Ericacbarnett 991: 990: 988: 984: 983:autobiography 980: 976: 972: 965: 964: 949: 932: 928: 927: 922: 919: 915: 914: 910: 904: 901: 898: 894: 881: 877: 871: 868: 867: 864: 851:Women writers 847: 843: 842:women writers 839: 838: 833: 830: 826: 825: 821: 815: 814:Women writers 812: 809: 805: 792: 789:(assessed as 788: 787: 777: 773: 772: 768: 765:(assessed as 764: 763: 753: 749: 748: 744: 740: 734: 731: 730: 727: 714:United States 708: 705: 703: 700: 698: 695: 693: 692: 688: 686: 683: 682: 679: 675: 674: 666: 655: 653: 650: 646: 645: 641: 634: 630: 625: 624:United States 622: 619: 615: 602: 596: 593: 592: 589: 572: 568: 564: 563: 555: 544: 542: 539: 535: 534: 530: 527: 524: 521: 517: 504: 500: 496: 487: 483: 482: 479: 462: 458: 454: 453: 448: 445: 441: 440: 436: 426: 423: 420: 416: 404: 387: 386:documentation 383: 379: 375: 374: 366: 355: 353: 350: 346: 345: 341: 338: 335: 332: 328: 323: 319: 313: 305: 301: 296: 295: 287: 286: 281: 277: 273: 270: 266: 262: 261: 256: 254: 253: 245: 241: 237: 233: 230: 226: 225: 217: 213: 209: 205: 202: 198: 197: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 3942: 3921: 3913: 3909: 3892: 3884: 3880: 3871: 3861: 3837: 3823: 3815: 3811: 3804: 3803: 3792: 3788: 3775: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3749: 3741: 3739: 3730: 3722: 3721: 3661: 3658: 3587: 3524: 3518: 3509: 3505: 3455: 3451: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3426: 3414: 3379: 3340: 3317:Good Article 3310: 3284: 3230: 3218: 3210: 3203: 3181: 3172: 3140: 3104:The Stranger 3100:The Guardian 3094: 3080:The Atlantic 3079: 3061: 3029:John Edwards 3025:Donald Trump 3009:The Stranger 3007: 2996:The Atlantic 2995: 2987: 2971:. Retrieved 2967:the original 2962:The Stranger 2960: 2933:. Retrieved 2929:the original 2902: 2887: 2874: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2850: 2843: 2839: 2837: 2832:The Atlantic 2831: 2821: 2818:which read: 2810: 2799: 2787: 2778:sockpuppetry 2771: 2760:; suspected 2755: 2741: 2729: 2725: 2719: 2711: 2705: 2675: 2535: 2405: 2351: 2315: 2312: 2303: 2297: 2258: 2255: 2250: 2248: 2245: 2160:WP:CONSENSUS 2127: 2110: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2081: 2063: 2028: 2010: 1938: 1918:Reflist-talk 1877: 1866: 1860: 1801: 1795: 1789: 1768: 1744: 1728:. Retrieved 1724:the original 1717: 1692:. Retrieved 1688:the original 1683: 1657:. Retrieved 1653:the original 1648:The Stranger 1646: 1621:. Retrieved 1617:the original 1613:Sound Effect 1612: 1589: 1584: 1569: 1565: 1563: 1551: 1537: 1526: 1514: 1505:sockpuppetry 1498: 1487:; suspected 1482: 1468: 1456: 1452: 1446: 1438: 1432: 1289: 1253: 1230:— Preceding 1227: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1100: 1090: 1058: 1043: 999: 974: 936:Women in Red 926:Women in Red 924: 903:Women in Red 875: 835: 784: 760: 738: 702:Project Talk 690: 671: 560: 498: 494: 450: 371: 318:WikiProjects 283: 271: 264: 258: 243: 215: 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 3943:SMcCandlish 3876:SMcCandlish 3483:"mere blog" 3360:Less Unless 3272:Markbassett 3207:non-notable 3204:Send to AfD 2973:October 26, 2935:October 23, 2619:WP:BLPSTYLE 2051:Markbassett 1730:October 23, 1694:October 26, 1684:seattle.gov 1659:October 26, 1623:October 23, 1585:References: 1554:Molly Ivins 1224:Notability? 1174:correction. 159:free images 42:not a forum 3964:Categories 3910:Doug Mehus 3881:Doug Mehus 3812:Doug Mehus 3764:Doug Mehus 3586:calls for 3582:. Second, 3235:Doug Mehus 2903:References 2863:Doug Mehus 2712:discussion 2141:"help ECB" 2099:Doug Mehus 1908:Regarding 1878:Seren_Dept 1826:Seren_Dept 1590:References 1439:discussion 1182:notability 1171:WP:REDFLAG 1054:designated 629:Washington 576:Journalism 567:journalism 526:Journalism 499:photograph 3905:Chetsford 3862:objection 3858:Chetsford 3845:Chetsford 3807:in favour 3797:Chetsford 3737:process. 3684:Chetsford 3647:WP:POINTy 3633:Chetsford 3600:Chetsford 3596:WP:POINTY 3548:Chetsford 3491:Chetsford 3460:WP:WEIGHT 3386:Chetsford 3376:Vocation? 3253:Chetsford 3227:WP:BEFORE 3113:Chetsford 3033:Chetsford 2889:Chetsford 2851:Relisting 2768:canvassed 2762:canvassed 2721:consensus 2641:Chetsford 2601:Chetsford 2572:Chetsford 2540:Chetsford 2377:Chetsford 2337:Chetsford 2215:Chetsford 2164:Chetsford 2162:process. 2090:Chetsford 2016:Auldhouse 1971:Chetsford 1904:Chetsford 1883:Chetsford 1854:but also 1848:Chetsford 1834:Chetsford 1813:Chetsford 1777:Chetsford 1573:Chetsford 1495:canvassed 1489:canvassed 1448:consensus 1395:Chetsford 1380:Auldhouse 1304:Chetsford 1296:vandalism 1210:Chetsford 1186:WP:BEFORE 1067:, or any 391:Biography 337:Biography 276:libellous 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 3872:John Doe 3789:Comment: 3759:Cheers, 3748:, let's 3384:edit by 3285:Restored 3213:, fails 2992:WP:UNDUE 2988:Restored 2840:restored 2800:username 2794:{{subst: 2788:username 2782:{{subst: 2772:username 2766:{{subst: 2756:username 2750:{{subst: 2086:Dicklyon 2069:Dicklyon 2033:WP:UNDUE 2029:Left out 2011:Left Out 1942:contribs 1790:Left Out 1773:WP:UNDUE 1745:Restored 1527:username 1521:{{subst: 1515:username 1509:{{subst: 1499:username 1493:{{subst: 1483:username 1477:{{subst: 1288:and the 1232:unsigned 1208:policy. 1003:contribs 236:deletion 208:deletion 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 3805:support 3800:thanked 3750:discuss 3740:If you 3325:bundled 3293:Bonewah 3211:written 2925:KIRO-FM 2844:omitted 2764:users: 2507:Cptnono 2479:Cptnono 2430:Cptnono 2275:Cptnono 2211:Cptnono 2198:Cptnono 2094:exclude 2082:Include 2064:Include 2037:Jschnur 1932:Legobot 1846:Thanks 1758:KNKX-FM 1491:users: 1319:Cptnono 1286:KNKX-FM 878:on the 741:on the 633:Seattle 308:C-class 165:WP refs 153:scholar 3742:object 3731:delete 3584:WP:DUE 3448:WP:BLP 3233:her. - 3169:WP:BLP 3084:"feud" 3004:WP:RSN 2858:delete 1994:rose64 1957:rose64 1950:WP:FRS 1856:WP:BLP 1852:WP:DUE 1830:WP:DUE 1351:Drmies 1275:WP:AIV 1271:Cptnon 1206:WP:EXT 1194:WP:DUE 1190:WP:GNG 985:, and 906:: 2019 707:Alerts 314:scale. 244:delete 137:Google 3793:reply 3513:added 3231:about 3221:lack 3143:with 3141:Agree 3096:Salon 3014:WP:RS 3002:. At 2742:Note: 2570:Huh? 2373:WP:RS 2335:Who? 1861:Seren 1796:Seren 1750:WP:RS 1469:Note: 503:added 495:image 466:Women 457:women 425:Women 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 3849:talk 3688:talk 3669:talk 3637:talk 3619:talk 3604:talk 3570:talk 3552:talk 3534:talk 3495:talk 3468:talk 3431:and 3421:2017 3382:this 3364:talk 3347:talk 3333:stub 3297:talk 3276:talk 3257:talk 3239:talk 3217:and 3191:talk 3153:talk 3132:talk 3117:talk 3069:talk 3037:talk 3027:and 2975:2019 2937:2019 2893:talk 2860:. -- 2682:El_C 2645:talk 2627:talk 2605:talk 2591:talk 2576:talk 2559:talk 2544:talk 2536:most 2525:talk 2511:talk 2497:talk 2483:talk 2467:talk 2449:talk 2434:talk 2414:talk 2408:. -- 2381:talk 2360:talk 2341:talk 2323:talk 2291:The 2279:talk 2264:talk 2219:talk 2202:talk 2168:talk 2088:and 2084:per 2073:talk 2055:talk 2041:talk 2020:talk 1998:talk 1996:🌹 ( 1989:. -- 1975:talk 1961:talk 1959:🌹 ( 1936:talk 1887:talk 1867:Dept 1838:talk 1817:talk 1802:Dept 1781:talk 1732:2019 1696:2019 1661:2019 1625:2019 1577:talk 1556:and 1399:talk 1384:talk 1370:talk 1355:talk 1338:talk 1323:talk 1308:talk 1260:talk 1240:talk 1214:talk 1153:talk 1107:talk 1044:The 997:talk 380:and 242:was 216:keep 214:was 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 3952:😼 3754:RfC 3735:AfC 3456:old 3219:may 3173:all 3109:PBS 2854:RfC 2842:or 2796:csp 2792:or 2784:csm 2752:spa 2726:not 1992:Red 1955:Red 1926:rfc 1566:not 1523:csp 1519:or 1511:csm 1479:spa 1453:not 1149:B k 989:. 870:Low 733:Low 595:??? 501:be 497:or 265:BLP 187:TWL 3966:: 3940:— 3851:) 3761:-- 3690:) 3671:) 3639:) 3621:) 3606:) 3572:) 3554:) 3536:) 3523:, 3497:) 3470:) 3452:is 3412:. 3366:) 3349:) 3336:}} 3330:{{ 3299:) 3291:. 3278:) 3259:) 3241:) 3193:) 3185:-- 3155:) 3134:) 3119:) 3102:, 3098:, 3071:) 3052:: 3039:) 3006:, 2959:. 2945:^ 2923:. 2910:^ 2895:) 2846:? 2802:}} 2790:}} 2780:: 2774:}} 2758:}} 2748:: 2647:) 2629:) 2607:) 2593:) 2578:) 2561:) 2546:) 2527:) 2513:) 2499:) 2485:) 2469:) 2451:) 2436:) 2416:) 2383:) 2375:. 2362:) 2343:) 2325:) 2281:) 2266:) 2221:) 2204:) 2170:) 2075:) 2057:) 2043:) 2035:. 2022:) 2000:) 1977:) 1963:) 1928:}} 1924:{{ 1920:}} 1916:{{ 1889:) 1840:) 1819:) 1783:) 1775:. 1716:. 1704:^ 1682:. 1669:^ 1645:. 1633:^ 1611:. 1597:^ 1579:) 1548:: 1529:}} 1517:}} 1507:: 1501:}} 1485:}} 1475:: 1401:) 1386:) 1372:) 1357:) 1340:) 1325:) 1310:) 1262:) 1242:) 1216:) 1166:/ 1155:) 1109:) 981:, 793:). 769:). 631:/ 627:: 167:) 65:; 3950:¢ 3947:☏ 3924:C 3920:· 3916:T 3895:C 3891:· 3887:T 3847:( 3826:C 3822:· 3818:T 3778:C 3774:· 3770:T 3686:( 3667:( 3635:( 3617:( 3602:( 3568:( 3550:( 3532:( 3493:( 3466:( 3362:( 3345:( 3295:( 3274:( 3255:( 3237:( 3189:( 3151:( 3130:( 3115:( 3067:( 3035:( 2977:. 2939:. 2891:( 2884:) 2877:C 2873:· 2869:T 2804:. 2798:| 2786:| 2770:| 2754:| 2643:( 2625:( 2603:( 2589:( 2574:( 2557:( 2542:( 2523:( 2509:( 2495:( 2481:( 2465:( 2447:( 2432:( 2412:( 2379:( 2358:( 2339:( 2321:( 2277:( 2262:( 2217:( 2200:( 2166:( 2113:C 2109:· 2105:T 2071:( 2053:( 2039:( 2018:( 1973:( 1939:· 1934:( 1906:: 1902:@ 1885:( 1864:_ 1836:( 1815:( 1799:_ 1779:( 1734:. 1698:. 1663:. 1627:. 1575:( 1531:. 1525:| 1513:| 1497:| 1481:| 1397:( 1382:( 1368:( 1353:( 1336:( 1321:( 1306:( 1258:( 1238:( 1212:( 1151:( 1105:( 1009:) 1000:· 995:( 882:. 745:. 603:. 388:. 320:. 288:. 263:( 246:. 218:. 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index