Talk:Michael Kelleher

Censorship

I made a significant contribution to the Michael Kelleher article. Ottamolloy and an anonymous editor deleted all of it without any discussion. I believe I included accurate facts about the life and literary development of Kelleher. If there was something wrong with the facts there should be discussion and appropriate edits can then be made. But the full scale deletion of all of my work is unaceptable. I suspect that Michael Kellehr himself has had a hand in this blatant censorship. I would encourage him to read up on the policies of Wikipedia. First and foremost, this is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a vehicle for self promotion. Secondly, if someone posts an article here they had better be prepared for criticism and unsolicited edits. The original editor retains no right to control the content of an article, even if he is the subject of the article.Nepal Tree 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nepal Tree seems to be an anagram for Peter Lane, an old roommate of the subject of this article. Please comment. Otamolloy 02:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you always were astute. I knew you'd figure it out eventually. Seriously though, this article presents a real conflict of interest and is primed for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI Check out this page and follow the guidelines. You should look closely at the section on "Ignoring the guidelines, and the consequences." If you don't want details of your life added to an article about you, then you'd best not post on wikipedia. I am not going to delete it, I am content to leave a record of my complaint that should make it obvious that this is a vanity article. Otherwsie, its good to hear from you, and I am glad to see things are going so well.Nepal Tree 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's my argument against the "conflict of interest." While I did in fact post this myself, it is not completely a "vanity article." I work on a project called OlsonNow, that does have relevence to Wikipedia. Charles Olson has his own page which references the OlsonNow blog, which I edit with Ammiel Alcalay, who also has a page. As my project is listed on both of these pages (and my name on Ammiel's page), it made sense to me to put up my own bio, in case someone wanted to find out more about who I am based on seeing me listed on Ammiel's page. I don't think it's fair at all for you to feel you can determine the relevance of an article solely based on the fact that the author is the subject of the article. Once something is linked through the matrix of articles, it IS relevant, regardless of the importance of the subject, which in my case is, admittedly, minor. Finally, I feel your comment above about "accurate facts" stretches the truth, as you chose to include quite a bit of psychoanalytical editroializing about my catholicism, which was not, strictly speaking, factual, and was more in the nature of parody, or in the terms of Wikipedia, graffitti. Anyhow, I really don't give a damn if someone takes it down, as my main intent was simply to allow someone to find me in case the other Wikipedia entries that include me led them to want to do so. If the Wiki-god decides I am unworthy of inclusion, then so be it.Otamolloy 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both for making me smile (I was only hoping to read about the politician Mike Kelleher). I doubt this article in its present form can be justified, since it has been created and then overseen by its subject, but I won't make that official. I'll delete the dead Pearlblossom Highway link. Sorry I didn't get to check out your poetry. --91.111.135.129 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)