http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223144681

Ah, someone else notable who unfortunately doesn't understand the concept of "notability," as wikipedia defines it.

Holy crap... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223151510

She's pretty pissed.

Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223157359



Soon to expire Google cache: http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:tLDIx...lient=firefox-a

Just going by that, she seems fairly famous in poetry circles.

She certainly hasn't grasped WP:NLT, but then who has?

I looked it over...

It made me wish that ee cummings was still alive and taking issue with his WP article

"...and how do you like your NPOV RL sourced boy, Mr Death?"

I wouldn't have written an article about her myself. Notability is of course subject to interpretation.

I was inclined to feel sympathetic, but.... geez, what a whiney bitch. Her caps lock appears to be having a fit. This did make me laugh though:


Her professionalism is somewhat ironic, no?

I wonder how many other subjects of BLPs have been hurt to discover that Wikipedia doesn't consider them notable? I can't say think of anything more nightmareish than having an article about myself on Wikipedia, but I guess for most people who don't really get how Wikipedia works it sounds great - all that attention in Google and so on. How painful it must be when they find out what it's like to have preteens plaster any random garbage about you over the number one ranking in Google for your name. This woman doesn't know how lucky she was.

Put away, almost ignored,
the conscripted globe
on the back corner cupboard glows
from darkness like a moon. Near full it sails;
fixed above his forehead
as though to the spire of a plunging mast.

(The Geographer)

This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable response <strike>to</strike> by a person unconcerned with their "encyclopedia" who finds her life intruded upon by people she does not know nor respect. I admire her refusal to accept Wikipedia's processes, the authority of funny named pseudonyms, or the legitimacy of parameters and rules placed on a discussion about her that she never invited nor gave her consent.

Shouldn't that be "response by a person"?

Yep. Thanks for proof read. I'll change it above.

She created the article; her consent to other editors discussing the article is implicit. Or else why submit it to Wikipedia? It is at the least pretty foolish to submit an article about yourself to a site without first checking out how the site works - and then to complain loudly and vociferously when you find out.

Kathleen Moore has a web page with some of her poetry.

She also has an E-Mail address posted there, so I've written her to come say hello to the rest of us malcontents.

I doubt that she will be interested in the parts of Wikipedia that do not affect her.

Perhaps Wikipedia ought to have a Terms of Service (ToS) agreement. Then you would be correct. As it is this lady simply used some software made publicly available. She is clearly not a part of this "community" and never consented to do things their way. Now she will not only have to deal with their arcane rules but with the kind of nastiness that always seems to follow when some outsider wanders into this attractive nuisance.

Blasphemies of Living People


She might be interested in the parts that address the WP:BLP Problem

She would probably be as put-off by people calling themselves "Moulton" or "GlassBeadGame" as by the Wikipedians. If she was not I would be a little disappointed in her.

Well this is a recurring theme. There are two bodies of thought: people are stupid and deserve what they get (which seems to be your line here) or in a civilised world we expect people to act ethically and are rightly annoyed when they do not. Checking how the site works - it seems obvious - it is a site where you can publish your own work - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - why should one expect that people are allowed to do nasty things and when you complain people simply say tough.

As a graduate of more mature years, I realise that it is very difficult simply getting through the modern day - the skill level of surviving in the modern world is stupidly high. Therefore, anything that expects people to spend time and effort researching the pitfalls seems to me to be an unfair contract. It is why I am becoming more disenchanted with GFDL and its mates - it all seems so simple, yet the implications are a veritable iceberg compared with the deceptively simple offer of nirvana the proponents make.

Wikipedia should do what it says on its tin, which is to be an encyclopedic work. Anything that falls outside that, it is reasonable for people to be aggrieved about. I remember being surprised that there was this whole other world behind the articles, and I do not think it is reasonable to expect even contributors to magically divine that.

If you think "Moulton" is an off-putting avatar, wait until she runs into the likes of Montana Mouse, Barsoom Tork, or Gastrin Bombesin.

Well then I guess it depends whether you think that what they did in this situation is doing what it says on the tin. I'm not seeing anything that would give someone due cause to start going on hysterically about lawsuits et al. If you post information about yourself (or any topic) on the internet on a site that belongs to someone other than yourself then you can probably expect that what happens to that content after that is out of your hands and there is always going to be the possibility that it was deleted. And in this case, when the AFD was created and she was so insulted that she demanded the article be deleted anyway, Wikipedia complied. What more can they do? It says quite clearly:



And is it so unreasonable to expect that people should assume that an encyclopedic project (or at least a project that claims to be one) will from time to time assess whether certain subjects are worthy of inclusion?

Really not seeing the cause for sympathy here. The woman was a bit of an idiot, if anything.

Found her MySpace page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...endid=393788437

She seems to be very worried that Canada and Mexico are going to be annexed to the USA, and is fighting to stop that.

A shame that the US is between them. because I think Canada should be annexed to Mexico directly. Maybe it could be done though hyperspace. Thus, any Mexican traveling North would wind up directly in some Canadian province without ever passing though the US. And since we're all racists up here in the US, with a horrible system of health care, that should make everyone very, very happy. We could watch the Canadians, and just learn.

Oh, no! US President James K. Polk has risen from the grave!?!

54'40 or fight!

What's the problem? The USA annexed Alaska although Canada was in the way.

Annexed? You make it sound like the Anschluss of Austria. We bought the sucker from Russia for cold cash and were laughed at for it, for a long time. Maybe they should have had a Dutch auction with Canada included. Do you think the results would have been different?

As for the natives? Well, again the problem of who owns land. When it came time, the native or first nation peoples got land in proportion to their population. Of course by that time it was a lot less than when the US bought it. But how else to proportion land as population expands? Keep it all belonging to those who got born first, and their families, and all else shall be serfs forever? We don't like that option, either, do we?

To annex means "incorporate territory of another into one's own". There is no necessary implication that it is done by force or improperly.

Yes, she seems quite concerned that those dreaded Mexicans will invade her beloved Montreal: "Welcome to Mexicanada". Oddly, she hasn't gotten a court date for her "law suit" yet. Then, after she saves Canada from annexation, then she'll get that bio on WP!

Be careful here. John Seigenthaler wrote an excellent biography of James K. Polk, and look what Wikipedia did to him!


I don't think we should diss people here who come from outside the Wikipedia community and get hit with shock and awe by the normal behavior of editors. It doesn't seem surprising to us that editors handle things the way they do, but it can be a shock to a semi-notable newcomer.