Talk:Sally Cato

Avoid even appearing to promote yourself via Wikipedia!

Hello. I see the User:Sallycato has edited the article about Sally Cato, so I inevitably find myself addressing Sally Cato. I did consider moving this message to her User Talk page, but my concerns begin with a specific bit of text from the article:

As of 1996, Cato is the owner of a New York City marketing and design firm, mostly creating material for entertainment: film, Broadway and West End theatre shows such as Eric Idle's Spamalot, The Rutles, An Evening Without Monty Python, Blast! (musical) and others.

The wording of this article is as unfortunate as former Vice President Al Gore's terrible statement, "While in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet". While technically true, it looked almost exactly like a crazy-stupid, self-promoting lie: That he invented the Internet. His petty, small-minded opponent's team jumped on this mistake right away, doubling the dishonesty by deliberately misquoting him. It worked. However they interpreted it, the public's intelligence was insulted. Even when Gore's supporters tried explaining what he really said and really meant, people still recognized it as sheer puffery (a term, I believe, you've become familiar with, since coming to Wikipedia.) His supporters themselves were disgusted! Who wants to split hairs between "creating" and "inventing"? The bad guys won. It was possibly the worst mistake of his career.

Likewise, this article seems to be claiming that Sally Cato and/or her company create these shows we already know come from Eric Idle, Monty Python, etc. I'm sure "material" is the one crucial word that makes it a technically-true statement, but I had to think about it. People don't like this sort of hucksterish trick. It's inaccurate language that seems deliberately designed to impress the very stupid, and confuse or piss off the rest of us. Knowing that Ms. Cato herself has edited her own article(s), only makes it look that much worse. Makes one wonder if Ms. Cato is, really, notable enough to even have a Wikipedia article about herself: The former singer of a never-famous band in a dead genre ... is now the secret talent behind Monty Python?!? Nobody will believe THAT, so why would they believe any of it? I believe this is how a beautiful and interesting porn star named Daphne Rosen lost her Wikipedia article. Trying too hard, going too far. Promoting one's self. It's a bad road to go down. This article should be made accurate, with appropriately encyclopaedic language, immediately.

Ms. Cato, if you had any ideas of promoting yourself and your work via Wikipedia, I assure you it's NOT the place, and urge you to stop trying before you do your reputation serious harm. (It seems you stopped as of December 2, 2012, but I'm speaking up nonetheless.) Consider this: The moment you're arguing with other editors about your own (or your band's) article, that's kinda the moment you've already lost the whole endeavor.

By "other editors", I don't mean me. I'm talking about SQGibbon: You picked a "Senior Editor II" (whatever that is), with 7+ years experience, who clearly styles himself a cop, to do battle with? Really?? Of all people, THAT's the guy you're gonna try and shout down with bluff, bluster, and appeals to emotion?!? The guy who actually, purposefully, describes his Wikipedia activity as "patrolling"?!? Because, see, I just ran across the guy today, and I already know I don't wanna get into a war of the wills with him. That sort of extremely bad judgement will definitely keep you poor and unfamous.

If you absolutely have to argue, go argue with metalmaidens.com. Just from Googling the band's name (the exact phrase gets 27,400 results, by the way, not 300,000), I can see they're saying Smashed Gladys "jumps on the bandwagon of the glam scene" (and you can't "jump on the bandwagon" and "kick down doors" at the same time, can you, dear?), and they say "No, they never got really famous", very much in the past tense. You'd still be better off sending their editor a nastygram by e-mail, than trying to edit your way to fame HERE.

Remember: Although it doesn't seem so, what you do on the Internet is forever.

So, uh, don't be a jackass. Not even in the name of rock history.

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

While I generally meant what I said . . . If I had known just how good your music was, I probably would have taken a different tone. It makes the article text I'm criticizing look like it might be based on a legitimate truth, though still poorly worded. Are you composing music for these productions? One doesn't generally expect that from a "marketing and design firm", but, well, I don't know. I'm still saying the passage needs to be re-written; its meaning remains unclear. But I've gained a new respect for you, and I'm sorry for certain bitchy asides in my comment above.

If it needs to be said: For those curious, the glam-metal music of Smashed Gladys is available on YouTube and is enthusiastically recommended!

--Ben Culture (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)