Talk:Vicki Iseman - Knowledge

3677:) has been making changes to the content pf this page, specifically removing mention of her previous lobbying employer from the lede, also removing the mention of the lobbying controversy in the lede. The new editor seems to have reason to believe the subject has created her own lobbying firm, but has failed to show any reliable source which verifies this. Further, each time the blankings have occurred, the underlying code has been disturbed leaving a broken page. I have zero qualms with page improvement, but have tried to start a dialogue on the ip's talk page and again here. Let's discuss how to improve the page without wholesale removal of sources and by following Knowledge's policies and guidelines, specifically those related to 2256:-- it is. Same for the Washington Post. This articles does not state that Iseman did such and such -- *that* would be inappropriate. Instead it states that reliable sources reported that Iseman did such and such. That is what we as editors are required to do. This article passes the three tests: Verifiable, attributed reliable sources and written in a neutral tone of voice. We can argue the semantics of a "single event" or "relative importance" but this is a notable person with extensive coverage. You could argue "single event" for Paula Jones or Brian McNamee and many other articles but because these weren't "relatively unimportant", 3638:

been under discussion since the original creation of the page, and the last measurement of consensus was concluded with a statement that the existence of this page tends to balance negative connotation which might be drawn from coverage of the controversy on its own page (a page originally created by extraction from this pagespace). Citation has been added after that DRV process, and notability doesn't expire. Unless somebody wants to relist this for AfD, I assert notability. (For my part, I've been a pagewatcher since the first minutes of page creation, and have participated on both sides in previous deletion discussions.)

2497:

paragraphs - way more than Kleppe's) to warrant keeping her biography page even if a new page on the Controversy is created. Let's recall, that the amount of information we know about Iseman right now is very thin and based on a couple Google searches - more information is sure to be reported in the next couple days. 4) Iseman is still a practicing lobbyist and will likely continue being of interest even after this scandal passes (if it passes). I can see a story ten years from now referencing her.

651: 633: 549: 528: 661: 470: 559: 1557:

the other two pages with a "See Main Article". I intend to strengthen the "Reaction" section to include other's take on this -- that it lacks substance, etc. (not our take, but RSs' takes). However, that said, I'll reiterate: If this controversy dies out, as is very possible, in the next couple of days, then I'd vote for the deletion of this article let alone the forked one. We may want to see how this develops.

408: 377: 2320:? This page wouldn't exits without the controversy? All of these have been countered so miserably that there is "no question" left? What is being recommended is this: since both McCain pages already discuss the matter, this page's expanded discussion should be deleted. What others have suggested is that a new pagespace be created to include the detail. Is that what you are absolutely sure about? 346: 260: 494: 190: 394: 2160:

doesn't involve Iseman? That would help with my confusion; I just reviewed it and I don't see anything that doesn't involve Iseman, even, if not particularly, the opinions that the original articles should never have been published as it relates to the veracity of the story (something we don't determine, the sources do). What evidence are you referring to?

1941:, so should we merge his article with the Mitchell Report article? John McCain makes her notable, but readers now want to know more about her than just John McCain. That is how I came to this article (or the tiny stub it began as) yesterday. I wanted to know more about the woman that was all over the news aside from the news story. 418: 2283:

figure, as someone who is a registered lobbyist. If subject was a man, and no hanky-panky had been insinuated (as the NYT seems to have done in this case), subject would be notable on the merits, as a registered lobbyist with unexplained close connections to a presidential nominee. That's my position.

3700:

I saw and reverted an insertion this morning and then saw another reverted by another admin I'd notified of my first revert. I went to this trouble because it's likely reliable secondary sources will soon emerge covering the twitter and substack argument between Ms. McCain and Mr. Schmidt. Let's keep

3514:

that we provide fair and balanced descriptions of living people far supersedes your subjective assessment of whether content is "interesting enough for wikipedia", and your attempt to apply a literal interpretation of the policy in a manner manifestly contrary to its purpose. The question of why the

2491:

1) I think the fact that Vicki Iseman has been linked to a scandal involving a presidential nominee (as opposed to someone just running in the primaries) means that we're probably going to be hearing a lot more about her in the months to come. 2) I don't think that Knowledge's Notability standards

2468:

There are tens of thousands of lobbyists who work in Washington DC, and Iseman is no different from any other one of them except for the fact that NYT chose to cook up a story about her and McCain. Now that time has established that the story was a lie, it is time to merge. Her notability is entirely

2282:

I'd oppose a merge with the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, on the grounds everything revealed in the last 24 hours (and mentioned in this pagespace) happened eight years ago, and is in no way a part of this presidential campaign, from a strictly enyclopedic view. Subject is a public

2159:

I don't think anyone suggested this was a vote. This article would not exist if not for the controversy. So would countless other articles, as suggested in the above discussions. That isn't a sufficient reason. All of this article involves Iseman. Could you please indicate what section of the article

1378:

is intended to discourage. This article is not a biography; it is about an event in John McCain's presidential campaign, although it pretends otherwise. Perhaps it would be best if it were moved to a new title, because I have doubts whether a seriously neutral and sufficiently well-referenced article

3145:

is supposed to serve a dual role. One, as an introduction to the article below and two, as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The current lead has one sentence that says she was born and serves as a lobbyist. Two sentences follow that talk about the John

2190:

been made here. Has the "strong policy reasons to justify keeping this article" standard been applied to all other articles? That's seems to place the burden on justifying not merging. Why? Let me put it this way... by merging the article, what problem would we be solving? By leaving it here, what

2038:

that it isn't a matter of undue weight -- see comments above so I don't repeat them here. Undue weight is not an issue of relative space. Both McCain articles discuss this but with less detail. What exactly are you recommending to be merged? The entire text relating to the controversy? That wouldn't

1676:

It is quite probable, of course, that she wouldn't have a biography in Knowledge if it weren't for the controversy, but I think the matter of whether the article should be deleted and replaced with a straight redirect can be considered separately from the question of whether in its current form it's

1556:

Well, this is already covered in both the McCain and the 2008 campaign article although with much less detail. There is *some* meat to her bio, Personal and Career. If we forked off the bulk of the Controversy into another article that detailed the issue, then we could use the "shortened form" as on

1183:

The McCain-Iseman story has yet to fully unfold, but my initial thoughts are that Vicki Iseman the person is not notable enough to warrant an article. The controversy on the other hand probably does deserve an article. What are people's thoughts on renaming the article to focus on the controversy?

988:

That's why I initially said that she received her B.S.Ed. from IUP. I note that some, no-doubt well-meaning soul switched this to "B.Sc." and then another well-meaning soul switched it to "B.A." I appreciate the attention, but I continue to maintain that I was right the first time, so I'm going to

2145:

Remember this isn't a vote, folks. We need strong, policy reasons to justify keeping this article as a biography. Would this article exist, for instance, if not for the McCain controversy? If it would, that's a strong argument in favor of not merging. How much of the article is about the person

1981:

I have to object somewhat to the characterization above of this controversy. It was not just one event nor even a romantic liaison alone that forms the basis of her notability. She is also a lobbyist whose clients donated to McCain, and on whose behalf McCain intervened. None of that is gossip or

1873:

Disagree if you mean push all of this text to the campaign article -- already discussed there. Agree to push the detail into an article discussing the controversy while keeping the basic bio info here (presuming she continues to be notable, viz-a-viz Paula Jones). Prefer to wait to see if this even

1491:

The facts as we are aware of them point to no improper conduct by Ms Iseman at all. She seems to have been unfortunate enough to become close to a married senator while working as a lobbyist, causing his aides to express qualms about his fitness to run for high office. Putting a huge section into

1482:

The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack — the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful

1244:

isn't a function of relative space in the article, but whether the section has more weight than the subject requires or gives one side of a controversy more weight than is proportional to the verified sources. I would aruge that neither is the case here. I do think you have a stronger argument with

3398:

And I'm of the opinions that other stuff exists, both discussions are connected and the removal of sourced positive information which has endured the scrutiny of several deletion processes does little credit to those involved in the processes. One shouldn't ignore the previous discussions on these

2592:

I have a photo of Vicki Iseman that I took with my own cheap camera in 2002. I posted it into Wikimedia, but I don't know how to add it to the main article. Whomever knows how to do that is free to post the pic into the article. I think you can sesarch for it in Wikimedia. It's an analog image

2500:

Therefore, I would recommend creating a "McCain-Iseman Scandal" page, but keeping the Vicki Iseman biography page, though paring down the amount of stuff about the controversy on the biography. It would mean having double articles, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and this is the

1703:

There is no question that she wouldn't have an article if not for this issue. Nor would Paula Jones, as you have pointed out. She has become notable. I recommend not that we push all of this detail into either of the McCain articles (which already include much of the info in condensed form) but to

3637:

Numerous citations demonstrate the subject being covered in multiple reliable sources, some of which predate the NY Times story which prompted attention into her lengthy public lobbying career. Unless I see some significant discussion here, I'm removing the January tag in 24 hours. Notability has

3383:

I think we should keep the 2 discussions separate; I nominated it for merger (and it's already gone through those 3 things you mention), but we've got that conversation going on over on the other talk page. Here, I'm talking about bringing this article in line with wikipedia standards and all I'm

1210:

To TS: undue weight isn't an issue here -- the controversy involves this much detail. If you would like, you can expand on her bio. To Newsroom: I would support your idea which was my first reaction. Make it about the controversy, redirect her name to the page and add "Main article" in the McCain

2104:

That's fine. I stand by my opposition to the merger which, in effect, means deletion of this article. The biographical detail is well sourced independently from the campaign articles. The controversies are well sourced and all relate to Iseman as do the balancing statements that call the NYT and

1791:

It is for us to utilize verified reliable sources. I argue that the article uses just that (after I deleted Huffington Post and Drudge references). It is not up to us to characterize the information as "gossip" -- I added in just that kind of characterizations to the article and referenced them.

2815:

Okay, I'm going to leave off the "astroturfing" wording - while I don't think it can be slotted as OR, it will probably be too controversial for inclusion. However, I must remove the "grassroots" characterization of her activities. Considering the history of powerful lobbying and PR firms and

2754:

In the "lobbying activities" section, Ms. Iseman was credited with "grassroots organizing" on behalf of her clients. I have changed this to "grassroots organizing (arguably astroturfing)" - this edit may be somewhat controversial, but I would say that any "grassroots organizing" by a prominent

2251:

There isn't an article on the event itself. If this event becomes enlarged, then an event article is required. The sources have written extensively about Iseman in the context of her activities with McCain. I don't think this is the appropriate forum for debating whether The New York Times is a

2185:

TS, how is "this article would not exist if not for the McCain controversy" an argument in favor of not merging, much less a strong one? If "notability comes from only X" were a strong argument, it would apply to merging countless Knowledge articles. You also seem dismissive about the strong

2129:

I oppose the merge per Therefore and FailureOfAFriend. I came to Knowledge today looking for an article about Vicki Iseman and I am glad I did not get redirected to a subsection of the John McCain article. Also, I disagree with the argument that Knowledge articles should meet traditional/paper

2449:

Disagree for now unless a more compelling reason can be given now that we've been through both the DRV and the AfD. At minimum, it would have to be a merge to the controversy article not the main campaign page for this to even be reasonable. Therefore's point that this would be much more of a

2002:

insisting that this isn't a case of undue weight?) should be merged as soon as possible to the almost identical section in the article about McCain's 2008 candidacy. Whatever remains can be retained here if it merits being kept. A stub section can be created on this article, referring to the

1907:

The bio info (Personal and Career) come from sources other than the campaign articles. There is already information in both McCain articles. What you are arguing for is for the deletion of the detail. What I argue for is that the detail is appropriate on its own page. Then make the controversy

1687:

I don't know if I agree with the idea that *we* can determine that she lacks culpability as the main source does allege a romantic entanglement and complains of what its sources consider inappropriate behavior -- both personally and by her allegedly leveraging her relationship by promoting her

1525:

Just because I'm sure it will come up, I'll raise the third option of merging the relevant content to the JMC 2008 campaign article. Advantage, the way I see it: It's good to have stories like these in one place, especially when they derive so much of their notability from the parent article.

2343:

I disagree that Tony has adequately made the case for BLP vio. This isn't about one incident at all. It's about a pattern of incidents which occurred many years ago. Therefore merging with the campaign article is totally inappropriate. I'd like a refutation of that assertion before I accept a

858:

I don't know if it is proper to put this on the talk page, but I wanted to say that this article is shaping up nicely. I had hoped to contribute to building this article last night prior to deletion, as the previous version I came across was a short stub that didn't meet Knowledge standards.

2906:

I'd like to go with that, but I think it might eventually be removed for running to close to "so-called grassroots efforts" or something like that. "Public organizing" is the least tendentious phrase I could think of for the moment. Same idea, but minus the positive (and, IMO, undeserved)

2496:

page get visited, yet he's still clearly notable enough to warrant a page. A lot more people will be searching for information on Iseman than on Kleppe in the months (and I daresay, years) to come. 3) I think that there is enough material about Iseman's background before the scandal (four

3044:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Knowledge articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common

3593:

We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.

1889:

The sources relate to the campaign and are not in any sense "biographical". I'd say a paragraph or two on the campaign article is quite sufficient for the moment. IFFFFFF she becomes longer-term notable, we can consider a biography at a later date, if real biographical sources become

1673:, likely to bias the article about a blameless individual by devoting over half of the biography to a controversy in which she has herself become embroiled. The controversy pertains to the alleged conduct of a third party and can be quite adequately handled in the related article. 1509:

is bias. However, I agree with your statement of facts (but I'll leave it to the sources to judge her culpability). I encourage, because I believe there is consensus, that a) this article should be renamed (to what needs to be discussed), b) Vicki Iseman redirected. Thoughts?

3384:

saying is that her high school activities have no business being on wikipedia. Even if she were to reappear in the news, her high school information would still be irrelevant. The pages of legitimately famous people don't go into as much useless detail as this page does.

3472:

My main problem with this article is that your "well-sourced favorable information" is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and even if the merger isn't made, almost all of it should be removed. As for the merger; that discussion is taking place over at

3432:, not four months ago. Again I argue that this has already been hashed out pretty thoroughly in 4 total deletion processes, and I see no compelling reason to revisit this exact subject two months later without referring to all the previous discussion on the subject. 1704:

place it in its own article. Or wait for several days and see if this dies out. If it does, then delete this article and the McCain articles will evolve accordingly. If not, then I believe forking to its own article with a mention here would be appropriate. Thoughts?

3450:

would result in the elimination of our well-sourced favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, and the treatment of Iseman only in the context of the controversy in which she was involved, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that our

1173:

I've already remarked on the relative sizes involved--five kilobytes on the person and six kilobytes on the controversy. Moreover it's of far more relevance to the McCain campaign than it is to her. She's a lobbyist, he's an elected public representative.

3496:(I didn't notice your last sentence when I wrote my response a moment ago.) I didn't remove the content because it was favourable, I removed it because it is not interesting enough for wikipedia, and as far as I can tell, no one has challenged that point. 1746:

Gee, where have you been the last 20 years (Gary Hart onward)? ;) I don't consider the sources tabloids and they raise ethical issues. It is not for us to "determine" this is "tabloid", "gossip", etc. This is a very notable news item. Go to Google News.

2370:

To be clear: editors aren't looking to merge the information from this article into another (both McCain articles include a sub-set of the information) but want to delete this page. Consensus is the backbone of Knowledge and it has not been reached.

1295:

Naturally, no one is "in charge". I believe consensus is evolving (see above section) that this should be about the current event itself rather than a bio. In this case, if consensus does come to this conclusion, Newsroom would do the tinkering.

1050:

I have rephrased the lead because it gave the false impression, by use of quote marks, that the New York Times used the words "improper relationship". I've searched all four pages of the cited article and have found no trace of those words.

815:

Agreed. The article did need some additional information, but the stated reason for deletion that Iseman is not notable enough is suspect. Someone on the front page of NewYorkTimes.com and Drudge Report has a pretty good claim to notability.

3754: 3086:

I hope that it doesn't appear that I'm fighting here. I countered the justification of GTL with the actual text of SEEALSO which supports its inclusion since "common sense" would dictate that is a typical and expected "See also".

3049:

This isn't a prohibition against repeating links that would provide license to an editor to automatically delete the link but instead defers to their editorial judgment. In this case, the "See also" is clearly relevant. Thoughts?

1279:

I think the article is mostly a rehash of items already on the John McCain page and really either needs to be deleted/merged with the appropriate section of McCain's page or with a page decribing the current event itself. Thanks

2241:

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the

795:

I disagree with the rapid deletion of this page. I was just writing on this talk page when that happened. Speedy deletion was too fast. This article might have a regular article for deletion candidate. I fail to see how the

3354:

I don't think you've really offered much of a rationale for undoing my edits. If you read the wiki policy I cited, I don't see how you can reconcile that policy with the continued presence of Iseman's high school activites

1450:

tagged the article with a coatrack template saying, it was the "very definition" of a coatrack. I disagree. One element of a coatrack article is bias. I don't see the bias in the article which uses sources that, unlike

3597:

We plan to defend the suit vigorously and expect to prevail. We have insurance, so there is no material financial exposure; we view defending libel suits as an ordinary cost of doing business.javascript:insertTags('

3744: 3481:

in a balanced manner, and should not be used to justify adding unencyclopedic material. Please respond over on the other talk page. There is no consensus over there, so I'm going to undo your removal of the merge

484: 153: 1157:

I don't agree with this decision. This article has been carefully referenced by very reliable sources. The amount of detail is more appropriate here than on the McCain page which links to this page. Thoughts?

2209:. At the moment we're talking about a single event and a single hotly disputed journalistic source. We're walking on the edge alongside the New York Times, and that isn't where an encyclopedia should be. -- 1693:

I agree that that the argument that this has coatrack qualities is arguable -- I was quibbling with your characterization that it was the "very definition". It really doesn't fit any of the examples used at

3789: 3739: 3148:

The current lead does not summarize the article, the first sentence summarizes the article and the next two sentences summarize why she is notable, something that isn't even discussed in the article itself.

3413:

I would respectfully suggest that the previous discussions were inconclusive, and that the failure to reach consensus 4 months ago is not a good enough reason for keeping in place blatantly unencyclopedic

1211:

article. However, one caveat: this may easily go away after this weekend's news cycle and all this effort may then best be reversed. If this does not have legs, then it shouldn't have this kind of detail.

1529:

After thinking about it some, I'd favor this option. At this point, the story has a big "so what" factor to it, in that it raises a couple of thinly sourced allegations and rehashes a bunch of old stuff.

985:). I assume that Iseman told Alcalde and Faye that she had "a bachelor's degree in Elementary Education", and they mistakenly assumed it was a B.A., which explains why it says that on her firm profile. 2988:

Knowledge is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.

977:

While the Alcalde and Fay biography claims that Iseman has a "B.A." in Elementary Education, a quick check of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania's Professional Studies in Education Department's

1908:

section on this page a mention with a link to the main article. The biographical material (Personal and Career) does add substance and background that wouldn't be appropriate on the campaign page.

1276:

Someone "in charge" needs to decide whether this is a biography or a current event as the article starts as a biography of someone that without the "current event" element would be non-notable.

2012:

Should it be merged in the article about the 2008 candidacy or the 2000 candidacy? The reports came out during this election, but are based on events that took place during the 2000 election.

765: 1426:) to characterize editor's efforts as "biased" -- no more than you are "biased" in removal. Let's discuss the issues here and come to some sort of consensus on the direction of the article. 937:

This entry should be relabelled as McCain Iseman connection or something other than a biography of Vicki Iseman. It currently deals almost exclusively with the recent article from the NYT.

3150:

I know I will get reverted if I remove the second and third sentences of the lead or if I add material about the controversy into the article, so how do we fix this, or do we even fix it?

1379:

can be written about the person herself. (This is a typical problem with articles about people known only for political scandals, though not limited to Republicans: see, for example,

479: 387: 3146:

McCain controversy. The article has two major sections with one having two subsections. Not one word of the article except for a "See Also" link talks about the McCain Controversy.

2248:

Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself,

691: 3169:

and no attempt was to add a summary statement to the body. I have no problem with you adding in a section about the controversy so that the lede isn't the sole source of the info.

1117:

Ironically, I agree with you here, Tony (indeed, I was falsely accused on my talk page of nominating this for a speedy and/or deleting it myself). Sounds like a case for an AfD. --

3232: 3187: 3007: 2969: 3749: 3533: 3474: 3369:

All the above said, this version of the article has weathered two AfDs and two Deletion Reviews recently, so it's not like this merge concept hasn't been discussed previously.

3293: 2968:

If the characterization of this organisation as "grassroots" is contentious, the word should be removed rather than making a meal out of the wording given by the company. --

2816:"grassroots organizing" - by definition, something they pretend to but are not capable of - I can't accept their own website as a Reliable Source for this characterization. 325: 3784: 3759: 734: 708: 147: 1408:

Good luck keeping that "coatrack template" on it; people kept deleting the "notable template" I put on it. Too much bias in favor of this article remaining around.--

3289: 3066:

I restored the "See also" once via revert, but the anon user has a point, the link is a redundancy from one in the opening. Not worth fighting to keep, re NPOV. –

740: 2245:

Here they qualify "one event" as "relatively unimportant" or a nominee for election (presumably a relatively unimportant one). That isn't the case here. Further,

3774: 3277:

Some time has passed since this story broke. Slightly less time has passed since any wikipedia editors took a real interest in this article, so I've decided to

2641:

That photo is awful and extremely unflattering. No disrespect meant, Priorart, but the quality on that photo makes it probably unsuitable for encyclopedic use.

615: 605: 2146:

and how much of it is about something else? If most of it is about the person then that's also a strong reason not to merge. But we do need evidence, too. --

1830:. This person is not notable outside of gossip and innuendos about that campaign. Having an article here is not only a coatrack, but contradicts the spirit of 1458:

On the other hand, I do believe the article should be renamed as the salient subject here is the controversy and not the bio. See above discussions. Thoughts?

1455:'s examples, are not "crackpot" references. It is reliably sourced and does provide denials. Nor is this a conspiracy theory, fringe topic, fact picking, etc. 3729: 3590:

I represent the New York Times Company and I'd like to make you aware of the company's position on this issue. The Times has issued the following statement:

2403: 1820: 330: 2549:

Having said that, I'm content with the page as is. It *is* about Iseman. If the facts of this situation grow, then a new page would certainly be warranted.

3794: 3779: 698: 313:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 280:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 3769: 3520: 2672:

Can I recommend that you scan it at a higher DPI and full color (rather than the limited color it seems to be?) In this case, I'd say nothing is better.

758: 79: 3186:

Looking at the current version of the lead, it contains a ridiculous amount about the McCain stuff, to the extent that it's back to being a coatrack. --

2568:, I hope we can discover a more neutral title before creating the new article. Which means the news media is unlikely to provide anything helpful... 1650:

close involvement with a lobbyist. There is no suggestion of her having behaved improperly in any way. My proposed way of dealing with this is to:

3429: 703: 3764: 3734: 3724: 3678: 3511: 3460: 3452: 3333: 1827: 1662: 581: 436: 305: 958:

Partially agreed. The article should be restricted to items directly associated to Ms. Iseman, not McCain campaign reaction to these allegations.

3010: 2755:

professional lobbyist is, prima facie, an example of astroturfing. If anyone disagrees with that assertion, I would like to discuss it here.

2130:

encyclopedia notoriety standards. If you can get multiple substantive hits for a topic in google, it probably deserves a page in Knowledge. --

848: 267: 2842:

You make a valid point. Alternatively, you may say something to the effect, "which her lobby's website characterized as "grassroots efforts".

85: 3190: 2972: 2079:

Absolutely not. We don't keep biographies about in case they become justifiable. We can recreate them later if justification shows itself.--

3256: 3123: 3103: 440: 44: 919: 981:

shows that they call the degree a "B.S.Ed.", which I imagine is to be read as "Bachelor of Science in Education" (a classic example of a

1982:

innuendo. It is their past relationship, and allegations about it, that lies at the center of the controversy as it's been reported. --

899:

As of this timestamp, subject is notable by any measure. 266 news hits on Google (all in the last five hours). This is going to be like

817: 674: 638: 873:

I see nothing wrong with the page as it is now, and she is in the news enough to be as noteworthy as anyone else. I'm against deletion

2564:

I would endorse and support both the new pagespace and the appropriate removal of the controversies section from this main page. Like

944: 686: 572: 533: 444: 2540:

That is my position, except we need to avoid the use of the word "scandal". We would have to carefully craft a neutral article title.

1079:

I felt I had to restore it. There is no way around the fact that her notability is solely due to the McCain allegations. This is not

2039:

be necessary. Better to put this into its own article, summarize here as done on the two McCain pages, and link to the new article.

2873:

Strictly speaking, the lobby's website is an allowable RS -- it just should be attributed in the text as such -- see last comment.

435:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3447: 3223: 3166: 3029: 2981:

In this case, it would be the editor's choice. However, as a matter of course, attributing contentious information is handled by

2710: 2064:

Better yet, let's wait to see how the story devolves/evolves. If it dies (very possible), then let's go ahead and delete/shrink.

1069:. A mention of the McCain fuss is appropriate; six kilobytes of in-depth analysis tacked onto a five-kilobyte article is not. -- 3477:, and I would ask you to consider that you may be misapplying the BLP policy which should apply to presenting material that is 771: 431: 382: 283: 271: 230: 99: 30: 1987: 1535: 1189: 104: 20: 2593:

scanned in, so it's not fabulous quality, but I figured I'd make it available, since I didn't see a piture on Vicki's page.

1065:

I've removed the controversies section because of undue weight. This threatens to outweigh the entire article, which is a

682:

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

168: 1929:

Oppose. She is notable because of John McCain, but that makes the reader want to know more about her besides John McCain.

74: 135: 357: 1315:

Naturally :o) that's why I used the "". Basically I meant administrators and the more experienced users/contributors.

65: 3165:

Definitely needs repair. Originally, the controversy section was a large part of the article which then was moved to

1582:

I want to make sure I understand your position: You believe that the Paula Jones article should be similarly tagged?

3515:

merger of this article (or blanking all favorable information that it contains) is inconsistent with the spirit of

2017: 1946: 1938: 864: 844: 805: 510: 1874:

has legs. The sources used are not "tabloid" and it is your characterization that these are gossip and innuendos.

1492:

the article overbalances her blameless history by associating it with a possible misjudgement by a third party. --

3235: 2522:

has a biography page, and he's probably going to play about as prominent a role in the campaign as Iseman will.

1983: 1531: 1185: 196: 2656:

I agree, but I figured it might be better than nothing. I could try to scan it in at a higher DPI if it helps.

1725:

This is veering into tabloid territory. We don't do articles about people who kiss married congresscritters. --

1144:

section about the allegations with a "main" tag pointing to the article about McCain's presidential campaign. --

3260: 3127: 3107: 1475: 989:

revert it from "B.A." to "B.S.Ed." If someone has a better explanation, though, I'd be willing to reconsider.

859:

Unfortunately, the article was deleted in the midst of edit. To all the people who have contributed, good job.

3571:

The result of this discussion was no consensus for move, due to lack of generated interest in the discussion.

345: 129: 3701:

our eyes on the ball folks. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Let's collect the sources and follow them.

3622: 3250: 3209: 3102:

It is already linked in the lead. It is not necessary to link to it again. What is the common sense here? --

3001: 1677:

a coatrack that can be turned into a proper biography by the methods I've suggested or by other methods. --

821: 314: 289: 109: 2770:

it's not for WP to make such assertions. find a RS that says she was astroturfing, and the edit can stand.

831: 2210: 2147: 2004: 1863: 1763: 1726: 1678: 1606: 1493: 1175: 1145: 1109: 1070: 1052: 982: 948: 3674: 2941:

Saying "so-called" would be POV. Attributing the contentious statement to the source itself, is neutral.

125: 3025: 2775: 2196: 2135: 2013: 1998:

At the very least, the entire controversies section, which now comprises 2/3 of the article (is anybody

1942: 1623: 1392: 878: 860: 840: 801: 363: 210: 3696:

A reminder that this subject is a living person and new insertion must meet BLP standards for inclusion

3006:

It's an inconsequential opinion, and making a song and dance about it would constitute undue weight. --

1762:

It is very much for us to determine what is gossip. Knowledge hasn't been around for twenty years. --

220: 3446:

I have removed the merge request. As was discussed at length at AFD and DRV, merging this article to

3428:

And I should apologize if I sound confrontational in this discussion. The latest deletion review was

3122:

I remove the link to the NY Times. This stuff really isn't necessary for this size bio. Thank you. --

1320: 1285: 1124: 1094: 940: 836: 666: 393: 324:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3199:

The lede needs to be summarized with detail pushed into the body of the article and expanded upon.

189: 175: 3231:

All the rest was padding which, placed in the lead, was adding undue weight to that controversy. --

3205: 3175: 3093: 3056: 2997: 2947: 2879: 2848: 2798: 2737: 2718: 2699: 2657: 2646: 2626: 2615: 2594: 2555: 2474: 2438: 2377: 2326: 2266: 2170: 2111: 2070: 2045: 2003:

appropriate article for details on the controversy. We should not retain this fork much longer. --

1965: 1914: 1880: 1798: 1753: 1710: 1632: 1588: 1563: 1516: 1464: 1447: 1432: 1388: 1343: 1302: 1255: 1217: 1164: 959: 564: 240: 161: 55: 903:(stub at sunrise and well-cited B-class by sundown). Let's do it carefully, ladies and gentlemen. 580:

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

3618: 3341: 3321: 3151: 2677: 2661: 2630: 2598: 2303: 1853: 1670: 1506: 1452: 1375: 1084: 963: 328:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 70: 650: 632: 548: 527: 2298:

Absolutely this should be merged forthwith. No question. Tony has made the case quite clearly.

1657:

2. Include a small stub section with a "main" tag linking to either the appropriate section of

3706: 3686: 3658: 3643: 3576: 3437: 3404: 3374: 3246: 3037: 2573: 2527: 2508: 2455: 2411: 2349: 2288: 1368: 1033: 1015: 996: 927: 908: 277: 51: 3602: 3541: 3501: 3487: 3419: 3389: 3360: 3301: 3155: 3072: 2912: 2821: 2771: 2760: 2493: 2192: 2131: 2080: 1959:

I agree with the exception that all of the detail here should be forked to its own article.

1891: 1839: 1007: 874: 780: 423: 2317: 2257: 2235: 2231: 2206: 1835: 1423: 1384: 1316: 1281: 1241: 1118: 1088: 1080: 321: 141: 1028:

on the first b-day posting, which I really don't think is very appropriate in any case.

3278: 3217:

I've replaced the extremely longwinded reference in the lead with the single sentence:

3200: 3170: 3088: 3051: 2992: 2942: 2874: 2843: 2793: 2732: 2714: 2694: 2642: 2610: 2565: 2550: 2470: 2431: 2372: 2321: 2261: 2165: 2106: 2065: 2040: 1960: 1909: 1875: 1793: 1748: 1705: 1695: 1627: 1583: 1558: 1511: 1459: 1427: 1338: 1297: 1250: 1246: 1212: 1159: 797: 469: 3718: 3516: 3337: 3317: 3282: 3222:

She gained national media attention in February, 2008, due to her involvement in the

3033: 2982: 2673: 2299: 1934: 1930: 1849: 1831: 1646:

Within the context of the John McCain election campaign, there is a controversy over

1105: 900: 679: 2713:. If someone can come up with a better name than that, the page can be moved again. 3702: 3682: 3654: 3639: 3572: 3524: 3464: 3433: 3400: 3370: 3242: 3142: 2789: 2569: 2523: 2504: 2451: 2407: 2345: 2284: 2253: 1834:. She is notable for one (alleged - and speculated and denied) event, so merge per 1409: 1029: 1011: 992: 923: 904: 577: 24: 1838:

and WP:NOT NEWS. Really, this is a bio based on tittle tattle, we don't do that.--

3316:

I think the gutting of this article was poorly advised, and I have reverted it.

3598: 3537: 3497: 3483: 3415: 3385: 3356: 3297: 3067: 2908: 2817: 2756: 2161: 1658: 1380: 775: 978: 407: 376: 2519: 656: 554: 413: 2316:

Glad this isn't a vote. And what case is that? Undue weight? Needs evidence?

3292:, but discussion for that should be done over at the thread I've created on 199:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 678:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 292:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

2205:

I've fixed my ambiguous wording. Sorry. On the substantive argument, see

493: 3459:

all favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman likewise violates our

3336:

please offer a specific reasoned justification for each excision here.

2501:

sort of thing that will generate enough interest to make it worthwhile.

3523:

and summarized by the closing administrator for your reading pleasure.

3281:

and delete all the extraneous bio details in accordance to wiki policy

832:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_21

2164:. This article is well sourced, neutrally written and is verifiable. 2162:

The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability, not truth.

3755:

Knowledge requested photographs of politicians and government-people

3710: 3690: 3662: 3647: 3626: 3606: 3580: 3545: 3527: 3505: 3491: 3475:

Talk:John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy,_February_2008#Merger_proposal

3467: 3441: 3423: 3408: 3393: 3378: 3364: 3345: 3325: 3305: 3264: 3179: 3159: 3131: 3111: 3097: 3077: 3060: 2951: 2916: 2883: 2852: 2825: 2802: 2779: 2764: 2741: 2722: 2703: 2682: 2665: 2650: 2634: 2619: 2602: 2577: 2559: 2531: 2512: 2478: 2459: 2443: 2415: 2381: 2353: 2330: 2307: 2292: 2270: 2213: 2200: 2174: 2150: 2139: 2115: 2083: 2074: 2049: 2021: 2007: 1991: 1969: 1950: 1918: 1894: 1884: 1866: 1857: 1842: 1802: 1766: 1757: 1729: 1714: 1681: 1636: 1609: 1592: 1567: 1539: 1520: 1496: 1468: 1436: 1416: 1396: 1347: 1324: 1306: 1289: 1259: 1221: 1193: 1178: 1168: 1148: 1129: 1112: 1099: 1073: 1055: 1037: 1019: 1000: 967: 952: 931: 912: 882: 868: 852: 825: 809: 785: 443:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 3334:

WP:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown

1526:

Disadvantages: At first glance, it seems there's a lot of material

1597:

Other considerations may apply to other articles. Let's discuss

2693:

What suggestions do you have for the name of the new pagespace?

1665:. The stub section should note the existence of a controversy. 1374:

to this page, as I believe it is exactly the sort of page that

918:

Her firm's website has been scrubbed, but archive.org has the

339: 320:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

297: 254: 184: 15: 1688:

connection to potential clients. I defer to the sources here.

2230:(In response to TS): Thanks, now i understand. I argue that 492: 468: 3745:

Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles

2788:

I agree -- making a prima facie argument could arguably be

2450:

deletion rather than a genuine merger is also problematic.

1654:

1. Note the controversy in the lead, in a single sentence.

3633:

I assert this pagespace meets general notability for BLPs

3617:

The Times' position is already included in the article.

1083:, when it's the only thing of note about her outside the 3790:

Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance

3740:

Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles

3288:

I've also proposed that this article be merged into the

2469:

dependent on this story and should therefore be merged.

3456: 1249:

which I think Newsroom's suggestion will help address.

1106:

we probably should not have an article about her at all

1025: 1006:

No quibbling on my part, please. Not while you and new

2518:

Also arguing in favor of keeping a Vicki Iseman page:

2402:

Apparently, page consensus for this page was achieved

1669:

Including a duplicate section here is, as outlined in

1104:

If her "notability" is solely due to one matter, then

160: 770:

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out

576:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3141:The current lead for this article needs work. The 1108:. This is precisely what undue weight is about. -- 739:This article has not yet received a rating on the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3290:article about the McCain-Iseman-NYT controversy 174: 8: 3311:I think the merge suggestion was a bad idea. 3750:Politics and government work group articles 3332:If you choose to make excision(s) based on 2709:I have moved the "controversy" material to 1337:Yeah, yeah, I should have figured that. ;) 343: 3233:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 3188:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 3008:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2991:Which creates neutrally written articles. 2970:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2492:are really that high - how often does the 830:I've added this page for deletion review. 627: 522: 371: 3785:Unknown-importance United States articles 3760:Knowledge requested photographs of people 3028:has twice deleted the "See also" link to 2105:Washington Post articles into question. 1828:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 1821:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 1663:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 766:WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives 629: 524: 373: 1826:I propose this article be merged with 480:the politics and government work group 7: 3775:Low-importance Pennsylvania articles 3673:In the last few days, an ip editor ( 3512:biographies of living persons policy 2234:isn't applicable here. According to 672:This article is within the scope of 570:This article is within the scope of 429:This article is within the scope of 3730:Biography articles of living people 719:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 362:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3795:WikiProject United States articles 3780:Start-Class United States articles 722:Template:WikiProject United States 590:Knowledge:WikiProject Pennsylvania 14: 3770:Start-Class Pennsylvania articles 3653:I'm pulling the unnecessary tag. 2191:problem would we be causing? -- 1622:I apologize -- I mistook you for 973:Minor Quibble re. academic degree 593:Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania 3679:WP:Biographies of living persons 3455:policy is designed to prevent. 3448:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3224:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3167:John McCain lobbyist controversy 3030:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2711:John McCain lobbyist controversy 2429:Agree that it should be merged. 659: 649: 631: 557: 547: 526: 501:An editor has requested that an 416: 406: 392: 375: 344: 303:This article must adhere to the 258: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3241:It has the benefit of brevity. 2907:connotations of "grassroots". 2625:It is Vicki_Iseman_in_2002.jpg 800:is an improper or poor source. 610:This article has been rated as 453:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 282:Content must be written from a 266:The subject of this article is 195:This article was nominated for 3765:WikiProject Biography articles 3735:Start-Class biography articles 3725:Knowledge controversial topics 3536:, and restored the merge tag. 1505:Again, the important issue in 774:for writing better articles. — 456:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 3519:was discussed extensively at 3461:biographies of living persons 3453:biographies of living persons 3265:18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 3251:15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 3236:14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 3210:02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3191:02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3180:02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3160:02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3132:14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 3112:14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 3098:19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 3078:19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 3061:18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 3011:23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 3002:23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2973:23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2952:23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2917:23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2884:23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2853:23:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2826:23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2803:22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2780:22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2765:22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 2742:19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2731:That is wonderful -- thanks. 2723:19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2704:18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2683:21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2666:19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2651:19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2635:18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2620:17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2609:What is the image file name? 2603:17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2578:13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2560:02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2532:02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2513:02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2416:23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2382:18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2354:18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2331:17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2308:17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2293:04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2271:04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2214:03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2201:23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2175:23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2151:23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2140:23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2116:22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2084:22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2075:22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2050:22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2022:22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 2008:22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1992:20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1970:20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1951:20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1919:20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1895:20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1885:20:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1867:20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1858:20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1843:20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1803:20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1767:20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1758:20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1730:20:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1715:20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1682:20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1637:21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1610:19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1593:18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1568:19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1540:18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1521:18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1497:18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1469:18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1437:18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1417:17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1397:17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1348:17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1325:17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1307:16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1290:16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1260:16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1222:16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1194:16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1179:16:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1169:16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1149:16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1130:16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1113:16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1100:15:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1074:15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1056:15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1038:09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1020:07:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1001:07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 968:21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 953:13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 932:06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 913:06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 883:12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 869:17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 853:03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 826:02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 810:02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 786:13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 584:and see a list of open tasks. 477:This article is supported by 306:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 2344:redirect without consensus. 1476:WP:COATRACK#"But it's true!" 441:contribute to the discussion 3627:14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 3607:14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 3581:10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 1933:is notable only because of 1422:It is unfair (and arguably 759:Biography assessment rating 318:must be removed immediately 276:When updating the article, 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3811: 3479:independently encyclopedic 2479:02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 1939:Mitchell Report (baseball) 1483:impression of the subject. 1272:Biography or Current Event 772:WikiProject Biography Tips 741:project's importance scale 616:project's importance scale 3669:Recent edits by ip editor 3546:05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3528:04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3506:03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3492:03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3468:02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 3442:02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3424:00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3409:00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3394:00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 3379:20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 3365:19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 3346:02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 3326:02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 3306:02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 2460:02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2444:03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 2260:doesn't apply. Nor here. 738: 675:WikiProject United States 644: 609: 542: 500: 476: 401: 370: 278:be bold, but not reckless 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3691:11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 3294:that article's talk page 680:United States of America 573:WikiProject Pennsylvania 209:, 22 February 2008, see 3711:13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 3663:15:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) 3648:13:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC) 3510:The requirement of our 2750:Grassroots/astroturfing 2488:A couple observations: 1046:"Improper relationship" 388:Politics and Government 3047: 2990: 2689:Name for new pagespace 2250: 2244: 725:United States articles 497: 473: 352:This article is rated 270:and content may be in 75:avoid personal attacks 3042: 2986: 2588:Photo of Vicki Iseman 2246: 2239: 596:Pennsylvania articles 496: 472: 432:WikiProject Biography 284:neutral point of view 229:, 19 April 2008, see 100:Neutral point of view 3273:Notability July 2008 1984:Newsroom hierarchies 1532:Newsroom hierarchies 1186:Newsroom hierarchies 667:United States portal 219:, 1 March 2008, see 105:No original research 3675:User:199.47.100.133 1010:are doing so well. 693:Articles Requested! 565:Pennsylvania portal 239:, 4 May, 2008, see 3532:I've responded on 3032:with the argument 3026:User:72.209.11.186 2605:Priorart, 2/22/08 1671:Knowledge:Coatrack 1626:'s comment above. 1240:To TS: to expand, 1140:I've added a very 498: 474: 459:biography articles 358:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3208: 3178: 3096: 3059: 3000: 2950: 2882: 2851: 2801: 2790:original research 2740: 2702: 2680: 2618: 2558: 2380: 2329: 2269: 2173: 2114: 2073: 2048: 1968: 1917: 1883: 1801: 1756: 1713: 1635: 1591: 1566: 1519: 1467: 1435: 1346: 1305: 1258: 1220: 1167: 955: 943:comment added by 855: 839:comment added by 755: 754: 751: 750: 747: 746: 626: 625: 622: 621: 521: 520: 517: 516: 338: 337: 296: 295: 253: 252: 249: 248: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3802: 3255:Looks better. -- 3204: 3174: 3121:<outdent: --> 3092: 3075: 3055: 2996: 2946: 2878: 2847: 2797: 2736: 2698: 2678: 2614: 2554: 2494:Thomas S. Kleppe 2434: 2376: 2325: 2265: 2169: 2110: 2069: 2044: 2014:Failureofafriend 1964: 1943:Failureofafriend 1913: 1879: 1819:Merge this with 1797: 1752: 1709: 1631: 1587: 1562: 1515: 1463: 1431: 1414: 1373: 1367: 1342: 1301: 1254: 1216: 1163: 1127: 1121: 1097: 1091: 1008:User:Hunter Kahn 938: 861:Failureofafriend 841:Failureofafriend 834: 802:Failureofafriend 783: 727: 726: 723: 720: 717: 669: 664: 663: 662: 653: 646: 645: 635: 628: 598: 597: 594: 591: 588: 567: 562: 561: 560: 551: 544: 543: 538: 530: 523: 513:to this article. 461: 460: 457: 454: 451: 437:join the project 426: 424:Biography portal 421: 420: 419: 410: 403: 402: 397: 396: 395: 390: 379: 372: 355: 349: 348: 340: 326:this noticeboard 298: 262: 261: 255: 201: 200: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3715: 3714: 3698: 3671: 3635: 3588: 3586:Defamation Suit 3521:deletion review 3399:very subjects. 3275: 3139: 3073: 3036:. Here is what 3023: 2752: 2691: 2590: 2486: 2432: 2254:reliable source 2186:arguments that 1824: 1445: 1410: 1385:Kathleen Willey 1371: 1365: 1274: 1125: 1119: 1095: 1089: 1063: 1048: 975: 897: 793: 781: 763: 724: 721: 718: 715: 714: 713: 699:Become a Member 665: 660: 658: 595: 592: 589: 586: 585: 563: 558: 556: 536: 458: 455: 452: 449: 448: 422: 417: 415: 391: 385: 356:on Knowledge's 353: 259: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3808: 3806: 3798: 3797: 3792: 3787: 3782: 3777: 3772: 3767: 3762: 3757: 3752: 3747: 3742: 3737: 3732: 3727: 3717: 3716: 3697: 3694: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3634: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3587: 3584: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3534:the other page 3494: 3349: 3348: 3329: 3328: 3313: 3312: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3257:70.109.223.188 3229: 3228: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3194: 3193: 3183: 3182: 3149: 3147: 3138: 3135: 3124:70.109.223.188 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3104:70.109.223.188 3081: 3080: 3040:actually says: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 2976: 2975: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2783: 2782: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2726: 2725: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2654: 2653: 2623: 2622: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2535: 2534: 2485: 2484:Recommendation 2482: 2463: 2462: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2311: 2310: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2154: 2153: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1995: 1994: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1954: 1953: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1870: 1869: 1860: 1823: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1718: 1717: 1700: 1699: 1690: 1689: 1667: 1666: 1655: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1595: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1527: 1500: 1499: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1310: 1309: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1181: 1152: 1151: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1062: 1059: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 974: 971: 935: 934: 896: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 798:New York Times 792: 789: 762: 756: 753: 752: 749: 748: 745: 744: 737: 731: 730: 728: 712: 711: 706: 701: 696: 689: 687:Template Usage 683: 671: 670: 654: 642: 641: 636: 624: 623: 620: 619: 612:Low-importance 608: 602: 601: 599: 582:the discussion 569: 568: 552: 540: 539: 537:Low‑importance 531: 519: 518: 515: 514: 499: 489: 488: 485:Low-importance 475: 465: 464: 462: 428: 427: 411: 399: 398: 380: 368: 367: 361: 350: 336: 335: 331:this help page 315:poorly sourced 301: 294: 293: 263: 251: 250: 247: 246: 245: 244: 234: 224: 214: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3807: 3796: 3793: 3791: 3788: 3786: 3783: 3781: 3778: 3776: 3773: 3771: 3768: 3766: 3763: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3753: 3751: 3748: 3746: 3743: 3741: 3738: 3736: 3733: 3731: 3728: 3726: 3723: 3722: 3720: 3713: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3695: 3693: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3619:Wasted Time R 3616: 3615: 3614: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3595: 3591: 3585: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3286: 3284: 3280: 3272: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3234: 3227: 3225: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3211: 3207: 3202: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3181: 3177: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3144: 3136: 3134: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3079: 3076: 3071: 3070: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3046: 3041: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3020: 3012: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2953: 2949: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2885: 2881: 2876: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2854: 2850: 2845: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2749: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2587: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2489: 2483: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2249: 2243: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1962: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935:Roger Clemens 1932: 1931:Brian McNamee 1928: 1927: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1822: 1818: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1692: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1674: 1672: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1649: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1611: 1608: 1605:talk page. -- 1604: 1600: 1596: 1594: 1590: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1490: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1454: 1449: 1448:User:Terraxos 1442: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1413: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1370: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1277: 1271: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1180: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1131: 1128: 1122: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1092: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1061:Controversies 1060: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1045: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 984: 983:tagged degree 980: 972: 970: 969: 965: 961: 956: 954: 950: 946: 942: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901:Harriet Myers 894: 884: 880: 876: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 857: 856: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 833: 829: 828: 827: 823: 819: 818:204.128.230.1 814: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 791:Page deletion 790: 788: 787: 784: 779: 778: 773: 768: 767: 760: 757: 742: 736: 733: 732: 729: 716:United States 710: 707: 705: 702: 700: 697: 695: 694: 690: 688: 685: 684: 681: 677: 676: 668: 657: 655: 652: 648: 647: 643: 640: 639:United States 637: 634: 630: 617: 613: 607: 604: 603: 600: 583: 579: 575: 574: 566: 555: 553: 550: 546: 545: 541: 535: 532: 529: 525: 512: 508: 504: 495: 491: 490: 486: 483:(assessed as 482: 481: 471: 467: 466: 463: 446: 445:documentation 442: 438: 434: 433: 425: 414: 412: 409: 405: 404: 400: 389: 384: 381: 378: 374: 369: 365: 359: 351: 347: 342: 341: 333: 332: 327: 323: 319: 316: 312: 308: 307: 302: 300: 299: 291: 287: 285: 279: 275: 273: 269: 268:controversial 264: 257: 256: 242: 238: 235: 232: 228: 225: 222: 218: 215: 212: 208: 205: 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3699: 3672: 3636: 3610: 3596: 3592: 3589: 3570: 3478: 3414:information. 3287: 3276: 3230: 3221: 3216: 3140: 3120: 3068: 3048: 3043: 3024: 2987: 2753: 2692: 2655: 2624: 2591: 2503: 2499: 2490: 2487: 2465: 2464: 2439: 2437: 2430: 2428: 2281: 2247: 2240: 2187: 2128: 2035: 1999: 1978: 1890:available.-- 1825: 1675: 1668: 1647: 1645: 1602: 1598: 1481: 1457: 1446: 1411: 1407: 1278: 1275: 1242:undue weight 1141: 1081:undue weight 1066: 1064: 1049: 991: 987: 976: 957: 945:212.127.7.58 936: 898: 794: 776: 769: 764: 704:Project Talk 692: 673: 611: 587:Pennsylvania 578:Pennsylvania 571: 534:Pennsylvania 506: 502: 478: 430: 364:WikiProjects 329: 317: 310: 304: 281: 265: 236: 226: 216: 207:No consensus 206: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 25:Vicki Iseman 19:This is the 3201:∴ Therefore 3171:∴ Therefore 3089:∴ Therefore 3052:∴ Therefore 2993:∴ Therefore 2943:∴ Therefore 2875:∴ Therefore 2844:∴ Therefore 2794:∴ Therefore 2733:∴ Therefore 2695:∴ Therefore 2611:∴ Therefore 2551:∴ Therefore 2373:∴ Therefore 2322:∴ Therefore 2262:∴ Therefore 2193:Unflappable 2166:∴ Therefore 2132:Unflappable 2107:∴ Therefore 2066:∴ Therefore 2041:∴ Therefore 1961:∴ Therefore 1910:∴ Therefore 1876:∴ Therefore 1794:∴ Therefore 1749:∴ Therefore 1706:∴ Therefore 1659:John McCain 1628:∴ Therefore 1601:article on 1584:∴ Therefore 1559:∴ Therefore 1512:∴ Therefore 1507:WP:COATRACK 1460:∴ Therefore 1453:WP:COATRACK 1428:∴ Therefore 1381:Paula Jones 1376:WP:COATRACK 1364:I've added 1339:∴ Therefore 1298:∴ Therefore 1251:∴ Therefore 1247:coatracking 1213:∴ Therefore 1160:∴ Therefore 1120:Orange Mike 1090:Orange Mike 1024:Here's the 939:—Preceding 875:Dream Focus 835:—Preceding 354:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 3719:Categories 3038:WP:SEEALSO 2772:Anastrophe 2520:Tony Rezko 2404:over there 2034:I contest 1317:Jasynnash2 1282:Jasynnash2 895:Notability 507:photograph 241:discussion 237:Overturned 231:discussion 221:discussion 211:discussion 2715:FCYTravis 2668:Priorart 2643:FCYTravis 2637:Priorart 2566:Therefore 2471:LuxNevada 1848:Agreed. 1067:biography 450:Biography 383:Biography 322:libellous 290:citations 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3482:request. 3463:policy. 3457:Blanking 3338:Geo Swan 3318:Geo Swan 3021:See also 2679:demandez 2674:Bastique 2658:Priorart 2627:Priorart 2595:Priorart 2318:WP:BLP1E 2300:Eusebeus 2258:WP:BLP1E 2236:WP:BLP1E 2232:WP:BLP1E 2207:WP:BLP1E 1937:and the 1850:Remember 1836:WP:BLP1E 1624:Terraxos 1443:Coatrack 1389:Terraxos 1369:Coatrack 960:Rockgolf 941:unsigned 849:contribs 837:unsigned 288:Include 217:Endorsed 197:deletion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3703:BusterD 3683:BusterD 3655:BusterD 3640:BusterD 3573:BusterD 3525:John254 3465:John254 3434:BusterD 3401:BusterD 3371:BusterD 3279:be bold 3243:BusterD 2570:BusterD 2524:Adam_sk 2505:Adam_sk 2452:JoshuaZ 2408:BusterD 2346:BusterD 2285:BusterD 2242:person. 1979:Comment 1862:Yes. -- 1696:WP:COAT 1424:uncivil 1412:Bedford 1085:Beltway 1030:BusterD 1012:BusterD 993:Adam_sk 979:website 924:BusterD 905:BusterD 761:comment 614:on the 272:dispute 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3599:EBohan 3538:DiggyG 3517:WP:BLP 3498:DiggyG 3484:DiggyG 3416:DiggyG 3386:DiggyG 3357:DiggyG 3355:etc... 3298:DiggyG 3283:WP:NPF 3152:Jons63 3069:Yamara 3045:sense. 3034:WP:GTL 2983:WP:ASF 2909:Mr. IP 2818:Mr. IP 2757:Mr. IP 2433:Enigma 1832:WP:BLP 777:Yamara 709:Alerts 360:scale. 227:Delete 126:Google 3430:May 4 2466:Merge 2036:still 2000:still 1142:brief 511:added 503:image 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3707:talk 3687:talk 3659:talk 3644:talk 3623:talk 3603:talk 3577:talk 3542:talk 3502:talk 3488:talk 3438:talk 3420:talk 3405:talk 3390:talk 3375:talk 3361:talk 3342:talk 3322:talk 3302:talk 3261:talk 3247:talk 3206:talk 3176:talk 3156:talk 3143:lead 3137:Lead 3128:talk 3108:talk 3094:talk 3057:talk 2998:talk 2948:talk 2913:talk 2880:talk 2849:talk 2822:talk 2799:talk 2776:talk 2761:talk 2738:talk 2719:talk 2700:talk 2662:talk 2647:talk 2631:talk 2616:talk 2599:talk 2574:talk 2556:talk 2528:talk 2509:talk 2475:talk 2456:talk 2412:talk 2378:talk 2350:talk 2327:talk 2304:talk 2289:talk 2267:talk 2197:talk 2188:have 2171:talk 2136:talk 2112:talk 2071:talk 2046:talk 2018:talk 1988:talk 1966:talk 1947:talk 1915:talk 1881:talk 1854:talk 1799:talk 1754:talk 1711:talk 1633:talk 1603:this 1599:this 1589:talk 1564:talk 1536:talk 1517:talk 1474:See 1465:talk 1433:talk 1393:talk 1383:and 1344:talk 1321:talk 1303:talk 1286:talk 1256:talk 1218:talk 1190:talk 1165:talk 1126:Talk 1096:Talk 1087:. -- 1034:talk 1026:diff 1016:talk 997:talk 964:talk 949:talk 928:talk 920:page 909:talk 879:talk 865:talk 845:talk 822:talk 806:talk 439:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3296:. 2081:Doc 1892:Doc 1840:Doc 1661:or 1648:his 1387:.) 735:??? 606:Low 509:be 505:or 311:BLP 176:TWL 3721:: 3709:) 3689:) 3681:. 3661:) 3646:) 3625:) 3613:) 3609:', 3605:) 3579:) 3544:) 3504:) 3490:) 3440:) 3422:) 3407:) 3392:) 3377:) 3363:) 3344:) 3324:) 3304:) 3285:. 3263:) 3249:) 3203:| 3173:| 3158:) 3130:) 3110:) 3091:| 3054:| 2995:| 2945:| 2915:) 2877:| 2846:| 2824:) 2796:| 2792:. 2778:) 2763:) 2735:| 2721:) 2697:| 2676:| 2664:) 2649:) 2633:) 2613:| 2601:) 2576:) 2553:| 2530:) 2511:) 2477:) 2458:) 2414:) 2406:. 2375:| 2352:) 2324:| 2306:) 2291:) 2264:| 2211:TS 2199:) 2168:| 2148:TS 2138:) 2109:| 2068:| 2043:| 2020:) 2005:TS 1990:) 1963:| 1949:) 1912:| 1878:| 1864:TS 1856:) 1796:| 1764:TS 1751:| 1727:TS 1708:| 1679:TS 1630:| 1607:TS 1586:| 1561:| 1538:) 1530:-- 1514:| 1494:TS 1478:: 1462:| 1430:| 1395:) 1372:}} 1366:{{ 1341:| 1323:) 1300:| 1288:) 1253:| 1215:| 1192:) 1184:-- 1176:TS 1174:-- 1162:| 1146:TS 1123:| 1110:TS 1093:| 1071:TS 1053:TS 1051:-- 1036:) 1018:) 999:) 966:) 951:) 930:) 922:. 911:) 881:) 867:) 851:) 847:• 824:) 808:) 487:). 386:: 156:) 54:; 3705:( 3685:( 3657:( 3642:( 3621:( 3611:, 3601:( 3575:( 3540:( 3500:( 3486:( 3436:( 3418:( 3403:( 3388:( 3373:( 3359:( 3340:( 3320:( 3300:( 3259:( 3245:( 3226:. 3154:( 3126:( 3106:( 3074:✉ 2985:: 2911:( 2820:( 2774:( 2759:( 2717:( 2660:( 2645:( 2629:( 2597:( 2572:( 2526:( 2507:( 2473:( 2454:( 2410:( 2348:( 2302:( 2287:( 2238:: 2195:( 2134:( 2016:( 1986:( 1945:( 1852:( 1698:. 1534:( 1391:( 1319:( 1284:( 1188:( 1032:( 1014:( 995:( 962:( 947:( 926:( 907:( 877:( 863:( 843:( 820:( 804:( 782:✉ 743:. 618:. 447:. 366:: 334:. 309:( 286:. 274:. 243:. 233:. 223:. 213:. 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

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

Index