Talk:The Great Kat

Untitled

I have confirmed via a spirited telephone call by her that the text of the biography submitted here was submitted by The Great Kat herself, and is not a copyright infringer.

She was upset by what she took to be an accusation by us that The Great Kat herself was a copyright infringer, which is of course not true, and which of course no one here ever said or even implied.

Great Kat, let me repeat that the actions taken by Moncrief were not in any way suggestive that you personally are a copyright infringer. As we had no way of knowing that you were submitting your own biography, he acted solely to protect your rights. He listed the _page_ on a list of potential copyright problems, he did not say or even imply that the Great Kat is a copyright infringer.

Jimbo Wales 22:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Please note the above comment refers to a previous version of this article which has subsequently been completely replaced

old vfd "debate":

This isn't actually a VFD, more of a notice of deletion posted here because I don't know where else to bring it up. The Great Kat herself, a heavy metal guitarist of some minor fame, called me twice yesterday with many incoherent claims about this page and so on.

The basic story is that she posted her PR puff piece autobiography on the site, but anonymously, and a sysop did the right thing -- treated it as a potential copyright violation, cleared the text, posted on copyright problems page, etc. The Great Kat was deeply offended by this, and called me making wild legal threats and explaining how we are ruining her career by calling her a copyright violator.

Of course, we did not call her a copyright violator, and no reasonable person could conclude from any of the pages in question that we were saying anything of the sort. It wouldn't occur to anyone, even, I don't think.

Nonetheless, even my reversion of the page was inadequate for her, and she now is bitching and moaning about her name appearing anywhere on the site, and threatening me with legal action if I don't remove the pages from the archive, etc.

Well, forget that. I've had enough. I've deleted the article that she wrote, both as a courtesy to her because she obviously doesn't want her text used on our site anymore, but also because it was self-serving crap anyway.

Poking around on the net, she's a very, uhm, interesting character about whom we should have an article anyway. A real article, an NPOV article. It should be neutral, fair, objective, and true. We may rest assured that she is going to have her attorney scrutinizing it very carefully lest we say anything libelous about her, so be more careful than normal about that.

I do not fear any actual legal action from her. It would cost her a ton of money to pursue this, and it's just a completely baseless claim in the first place. Any responsible attorney will tell her that. Based on my experience last night on the phone with her, though, I'm not sure she will stop screaming long enough to actually listen to reason.

So, anyhow, that's why I just deleted the article without listing it here first. Jimbo Wales 19:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

• Personally I find it hard to believe this person could be anything other than cool, calm and reasonable in any social intercourse. --bodnotbod 20:32, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting. By the look of the publicity stuff on her page, she seems incapable of closing her mouth. An odd medical condition? Denni 02:33, 2004 May 9 (UTC)
    • Lockjaw ROFL! --bodnotbod 14:53, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Man I wish I a fly on the wall during that conversation. As this is a high-profile case, it is worth reminding people to not bite the newcomers if you can at all help it. In this case the new user got bitten (see the user talk page), got pissed off and Jimbo ended up with an ear-bashing and a legal threat. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Which user talk page? I see Talk:The Great Kat, but I can't find the user's page. --Ben Brockert 03:37, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • D'oh. Found it: User_talk:24.47.83.60. It is a bit brusque, but Moncrief was obviously acting in good faith. --Ben Brockert 20:08, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that what Moncrief wrote was perfectly acceptable and constructive. This user was already acting in a confrontational way. In that situation we need to politely set limits, and sometimes the reaction will be this. Even in hindsight, I don't see what else could have been done. Andrewa 07:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Wrong I think. Anon posted copyvio. With minutes it is covered up. Anon thinks "Hmm, it's ok, I wrote it so no-ones going to sue" and puts the work back. Moncrief makes an aggressive comment on the talk page, without explaining why copyvios are important (admittedly it would be good if anons/newbies could be trusted to read the copyvio message, but they can't, so we have to suck it up). Newbie flies off the handle at the tone, and phones Jimbo. If we had said "all we need to know is if it is your work, then we can keep it and edit it to meet our other policies and guidelines" then maybe the newbie would've understood.
  • So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for newbies to post copyvios and we're not supposed to do anything about it? RickK 19:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I think he's saying that one should be polite and friendly in explaining to new users that they shouldn't do this. Snowspinner 20:55, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly right, Snowspinner. That sharp message was left after the newbie had only once tried to restore her text. Lots of newbies don't quite understand what is going on when edits come rapidly. We should have some patience. Although we've heard the copyvio process a million times, it's their first time. Some of the aggressive old-timers should put themselves in the shoes of a newbie occasionally. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm in full agreement. We must assume all first posters have no clue about fundamental rules. Hell, lots of us who have been here for a while still run into things we weren't aware of. I think Moncrief's statement was far too harsh given the circumstance, and while I thank him for being on guard, I also think newbies should be encouraged leave the posting of such messages to others. I'm sure Ms. Kat's page would be a most interesting one, though it might be a bit tricky to get her to see the merits of NPOV... Denni 19:24, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
• Comment: I couldn't help but wonder why "lockjaw" came up. Then I saw the reason why. Interesting.  :^P I have no real objection to the stub as it is despite the poster's overreaction, but who the hell is going to wander onto this site looking for information on this individual? On the other hand, this just may be the next "CoolDude." BEWARE: SHE IS LOOSING HER PATIENTS! Jimbo, you handled it better than I would have, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 18:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• I checked her website, and some-one does indeed seem to be biting the newbie. As they are wearing a hood, I assume that they are one of our anonymous contributors (please stop it or you will be reverted again). Jimbo, don't be concerned about the screaming - in some cases it's an occupational hazard of playing loud music. --Zigger 19:02, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

My god... Someone even more full of themselves than Yngwie. Too bad she doesn't even have the skill to back up all the BS. (Come on, she has a song title called "worship me or die" and claims to be the reincarnation of beethoven. AshTM 04:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Full of herself...or something else. Completely not an NPOV, but she does nothing for me. So she's fast...so are others...so she's classically trained...so are others. BFD. From what I've heard of her stuff, I'd rather hear Tony Iommi, Ritchie Blackmore or Brian May. If she started screaming at me, I'd just let her scream until she was out of energy.--MarshallStack 06:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Juillard

Using her own web site, an interview with her, or a Wordpress blog is not acceptable citations for proving she went to Juillard. All references from Juillard.edu in search have been found to be dead ends when actually reading that page. Find something concrete. Perhaps something actually from Juillard?? This does not seem to be a NPOV article as it stands. 67.253.99.254 (talk) NachtEngel DieUberMensch (talk)

I'll look for sourcing better to your liking.

In the meantime, this is not acceptable. It is unsourced and, essentially, claims that she is lying, a BLP problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now sourced it to SPIN Magazine. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen I must protest. Sourcing an interview in a magazine is NOT proof of a persons degree. Please mark this entry as "Under dispute" until I hear back from Juillard.DieUberMensch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You may protest, but SPIN is a reliable source. Incidentally, the article does not merely quote her, it directly states that she graduated from Juilliard. Whatever you "hear" from Juillard[sic] is not verifiable. If you are uncomfortable with the source, you will need to take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

so, you're saying that Juilliard is not a reliable source? I don't call interviews a reliable source no matter where they come from. I agree. this should be marked as disputed. I note that Juilliard does NOT list her as one of their "Notable Alumni". You'd think that anyone -that- famous would be mentioned. ~Bear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.96.197 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References