User talk:Ericacbarnett
Welcome!
[edit]Hi, Ericacbarnett. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
COI notice
[edit]
Hello, Ericacbarnett. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Erica C. Barnett, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See WP:PAID. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, apologies for not following the Wikipedia rules—I am new to editing pages and was alarmed when I saw a link to an inaccurate hit piece against me added to this page (the frivolous libel lawsuit, which was dropped). I have asked the Stranger, the cited source, to correct this false and defamatory piece about me, but they have refused to do so. The frivolous libel case against me was dropped in its entirety so the fact that it now makes up half of a wikipedia page about me is totally unrepresentative of its relevance in my long career.--Ericacbarnett (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- We do have a policy called WP:UNDUE, however, if you believe this has been violated it is best to address your concerns on the Talk page. A discussion will ensue and a WP:CONSENSUS formed about whether it should be retained in the article. Also, as I assume you wrote this article about yourself (and that may be an incorrect assumption, so I apologize if I'm mistaken), please take a moment to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
- No, I did not write this article about myself (either directly or indirectly)—believe me, there are definitely many other things I would have included had I been the author! (I will not add them, though, and appreciate the correction on removing things directly myself.)
Is there any kind of standard for the level of relevance of links on Wikipedia—for example, if someone were to add a link to one interview or speech I did at some point along with a description the same length as the description of the Katie Herzog piece, would this be disputable as irrelevant or off-point, or is all information fair game for inclusion on a page? I ask because, again, I've been a journalist for more than 20 years and this article gives weight to one inaccurate article about a frivolous lawsuit against me that is far out of proportion to its relevance in my biography and professional career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericacbarnett (talk • contribs)- "Is there any kind of standard for the level of relevance" - Yes, WP:UNDUE, which I recommended to you above. To your further question, there is not a numerical standard. I believe the content that you removed was appropriate for inclusion within the context of article as it was only two sentences long and it involved what appeared to be the subject of the article's most prominent byline (The Atlantic), the subject of the article's other bylines seemingly limited to small, local newspapers. Similarly, the subject of the article publishing a memoir in 2020 might be violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:PROMOTIONAL since it is only mentioned on a blog and predicts a future which has not yet come to pass. In further background, everything in a Wikipedia WP:BLP should be referenced to a reliable source. In December 2017 a discussion [1] approached a consensus that The Stranger is a reliable source.
All that said, however, this discussion is best approached on the article's Talk page where the wider community of editors can review the content in question and decide whether or not it should be included. You are most welcome to open a discussion there, we just recommend conflict of interest editors (if, for instance, you happen to have a personal relationship with the subject of this article) do not edit articles directly.Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)- Appreciate it. I will note that in the same paragraph you refer to The Stranger, the place where the subject of the article (that's me) worked the longest, as both a "small, local newspaper" and "a reliable source" worthy of a larger conversation among editors, which strikes me as contradictory. I appreciate that the Atlantic has a larger audience. However, I hope that as an editor, you will appreciate that the cited article in the Stranger has been disputed by its subject, as it (again, in my view, as the subject of both this wikipedia page and the linked article) contains many false or misleading statements. Ericacbarnett (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- First, there is nothing that precludes a small, local newspaper from being a reliable source. Second, we do not have a reliable source that proves the content in The Stranger has been disputed (Wikipedia Talk pages are not considered a reliable source). Third, you'll understand that anytime the subject of a biography on Wikipedia finds content about themselves they feel is unflattering it is always "disputed ... [as] false and misleading". If we removed all reliably sourced, albeit potentially unflattering, information about anyone, anytime a person simply declared it to be "false", our articles on Donald Trump, Bob Avakian, John Edwards, and Sebastian Gorka would read very differently. Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Point taken, and I don't disagree that many people do just dispute any unflattering portrayals of themselves. (As a journalist, I get complaints about unflattering stories every week). However, I have had many unflattering things written about me over many years and I don't (nor could I ever find time to) dispute all criticism as inaccurate. The story in question is a piece written by Katie Herzog, a writer who has a long and public history of personal attacks (in the print and online editions of the Stranger, and all on the public record) against me, the subject of the article and this Wikipedia page. This article also contains demonstrably and easily falsifiable claims, such as the assertion that I personally "cost" the city of Seattle $30,000, which is legally impossible (I was not a party to any lawsuit at that point.) That's just one example. A reasonable edit, in my view, would be to at least shorten the description of the article to reflect its actual relevance to a long career rather than it being the main takeaway of the article. When I come across short Wikipedia pages like this one about other people, and they contain long sections about some controversy, I assume that that controversy was either ruinous to the person or of massive importance to their career; in this case, the subject is a completely dropped lawsuit that has only been covered, to my knowledge, by Ms. Herzog and by the two men who sued me, on whose account her story is based. Ericacbarnett (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BLPTALK before making accusations against living people as you just did. Per our policies, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced" is subject to WP:SUPPRESSion. This applies to personal Talk pages, not just articles. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Point taken, and I don't disagree that many people do just dispute any unflattering portrayals of themselves. (As a journalist, I get complaints about unflattering stories every week). However, I have had many unflattering things written about me over many years and I don't (nor could I ever find time to) dispute all criticism as inaccurate. The story in question is a piece written by Katie Herzog, a writer who has a long and public history of personal attacks (in the print and online editions of the Stranger, and all on the public record) against me, the subject of the article and this Wikipedia page. This article also contains demonstrably and easily falsifiable claims, such as the assertion that I personally "cost" the city of Seattle $30,000, which is legally impossible (I was not a party to any lawsuit at that point.) That's just one example. A reasonable edit, in my view, would be to at least shorten the description of the article to reflect its actual relevance to a long career rather than it being the main takeaway of the article. When I come across short Wikipedia pages like this one about other people, and they contain long sections about some controversy, I assume that that controversy was either ruinous to the person or of massive importance to their career; in this case, the subject is a completely dropped lawsuit that has only been covered, to my knowledge, by Ms. Herzog and by the two men who sued me, on whose account her story is based. Ericacbarnett (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- First, there is nothing that precludes a small, local newspaper from being a reliable source. Second, we do not have a reliable source that proves the content in The Stranger has been disputed (Wikipedia Talk pages are not considered a reliable source). Third, you'll understand that anytime the subject of a biography on Wikipedia finds content about themselves they feel is unflattering it is always "disputed ... [as] false and misleading". If we removed all reliably sourced, albeit potentially unflattering, information about anyone, anytime a person simply declared it to be "false", our articles on Donald Trump, Bob Avakian, John Edwards, and Sebastian Gorka would read very differently. Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. I will note that in the same paragraph you refer to The Stranger, the place where the subject of the article (that's me) worked the longest, as both a "small, local newspaper" and "a reliable source" worthy of a larger conversation among editors, which strikes me as contradictory. I appreciate that the Atlantic has a larger audience. However, I hope that as an editor, you will appreciate that the cited article in the Stranger has been disputed by its subject, as it (again, in my view, as the subject of both this wikipedia page and the linked article) contains many false or misleading statements. Ericacbarnett (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Is there any kind of standard for the level of relevance" - Yes, WP:UNDUE, which I recommended to you above. To your further question, there is not a numerical standard. I believe the content that you removed was appropriate for inclusion within the context of article as it was only two sentences long and it involved what appeared to be the subject of the article's most prominent byline (The Atlantic), the subject of the article's other bylines seemingly limited to small, local newspapers. Similarly, the subject of the article publishing a memoir in 2020 might be violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:PROMOTIONAL since it is only mentioned on a blog and predicts a future which has not yet come to pass. In further background, everything in a Wikipedia WP:BLP should be referenced to a reliable source. In December 2017 a discussion [1] approached a consensus that The Stranger is a reliable source.
- No, I did not write this article about myself (either directly or indirectly)—believe me, there are definitely many other things I would have included had I been the author! (I will not add them, though, and appreciate the correction on removing things directly myself.)
- We do have a policy called WP:UNDUE, however, if you believe this has been violated it is best to address your concerns on the Talk page. A discussion will ensue and a WP:CONSENSUS formed about whether it should be retained in the article. Also, as I assume you wrote this article about yourself (and that may be an incorrect assumption, so I apologize if I'm mistaken), please take a moment to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
Photo
[edit]Just a helpful tip, since you might not check the Commons again, but the photograph you uploaded [2] will be deleted within seven days if its copyright is not released to the Wikimedia Foundation before then. You can do so here [3]. Chetsford (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erica_Barnett.jpg){kind=link}
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potential BLPTALK issue on User talk:Ericacbarnett. --Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Some notes for article subjects
[edit]You may find "Wikipedia:About you" helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Ericacbarnett, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Ericacbarnett! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
Please provide proof of identity via email
[edit]Your username suggests - and you state here - that you are Erica C. Barnett. Please provide proof of identity via email to info-en
wikimedia.org. See WP:IMPERSONATE for further details. I'm sorry for the bureaucracy, but I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's meant to protect you from being impersonated by random people on the internet. Huon (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 | The identity of this user account has been verified by the Volunteer Response Team. Full documentation is available to trusted volunteers. If you are an English Wikipedia user and wish to confirm the verification, please leave a note at the VRT noticeboard.
Ticket: 2019091610007671 |
Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
[edit] Hello, I'm Chetsford. I noticed that you recently removed content from Erica C. Barnett without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Oversight
[edit]Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Requests for oversight process exists for administrators to expunge any content that could be defamatory or libelous. It is usually best to seek help from an Administrator rather than attempt to fend of conflict-of-interest accusations. Emailing info-en-q@wikipedia.org is one way to seek help with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)