User talk:Jaimie Henry: Difference between revisions
TheEvilPanda (talk | contribs) |
I agree with Protector777 |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
Hi Jaimie, thanks for your kind intervention in this silly business. As far as I can tell, the trouble seems to have begun in 2004. Here is a link to the part of the archive where I think Wigdor begins his involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism/Archive_02#Keith_Wigdor |
Hi Jaimie, thanks for your kind intervention in this silly business. As far as I can tell, the trouble seems to have begun in 2004. Here is a link to the part of the archive where I think Wigdor begins his involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism/Archive_02#Keith_Wigdor |
||
He harasses [[Daniel C. Boyer]] and fills the talk page with rants and essays. Initially his posts are unsigned, but you'll notice that the style of writing is the same as, for example, the above post by [[Classicjupiter2]] on your talk page. I think you can skim any page of the archive from there and see the extensive rants and sock-puppetry on the part of Wigdor leading to the present day. Throughout, many unsigned or unidentified users appear supporting Wigdor's claims. Apparently he even wrote an article about himself which was removed after a VfD. He has a severe bias against the Chicago Surrealist Group and other loosely affiliated groups, perhaps because they do not accept him as the "leader of the International Surrealist Movement." If you look at Wigdor's website www.surrealismnow.com you will notice that Wigdor's name appears on just about every page. The site bills itself "the official website of surrealism and its affinities," which IMO is such an obviously bogus claim that it already merits removal of the link. However, I've looked further and there is nothing to suggest that most or any of the artists listed on the site describe themselves as surrealists or participate in the surrealist movement. I am for the removal of this link from the article because it contains misinformation, it is mainly promotional of Keith Wigdor, and has little information about surrealism. As for the links that Wigdor opposes, these include links to the Chicago surrealist group (www.surrealistmovement-usa.org) and numerous other surrealist groups, in Paris, London, Portland, Athens, etc. These are active surrealist groups, some of which have a historical connection to Breton's circle. I think it's important for these links to be on the site to show some of the contemporary surrealist activity, contrary to the claim by some that surrealism died out. Keith Wigdor has raised a number of objections to these links and has changed his argument several times; however, his most persistent problem seems to be the lack of photographs showing Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (founders of the Chicago group) meeting Andre Breton. He claims that if such photographs cannot be produced, then the Rosemonts must not have met Breton and they must be frauds. I think that this is some very specious logic; furthermore, it has little relevance regarding the Chicago group's relevance and activity. It seems now that Wigdor has relented a little on this, after I produced scans of the Chicago Group's Arsenal publication. Nevertheless, he persists in deleting the links unless his links are included has well. The other link he insists on including is clearly a commercial site promoting another painter. Well, I think I have summarized the tedious details well enough. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to answer them. I think a glance at the archived talk page might be enough to convince you of Wigdor's insanity. Thank you. [[User:TheEvilPanda|TheEvilPanda]] 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
He harasses [[Daniel C. Boyer]] and fills the talk page with rants and essays. Initially his posts are unsigned, but you'll notice that the style of writing is the same as, for example, the above post by [[Classicjupiter2]] on your talk page. I think you can skim any page of the archive from there and see the extensive rants and sock-puppetry on the part of Wigdor leading to the present day. Throughout, many unsigned or unidentified users appear supporting Wigdor's claims. Apparently he even wrote an article about himself which was removed after a VfD. He has a severe bias against the Chicago Surrealist Group and other loosely affiliated groups, perhaps because they do not accept him as the "leader of the International Surrealist Movement." If you look at Wigdor's website www.surrealismnow.com you will notice that Wigdor's name appears on just about every page. The site bills itself "the official website of surrealism and its affinities," which IMO is such an obviously bogus claim that it already merits removal of the link. However, I've looked further and there is nothing to suggest that most or any of the artists listed on the site describe themselves as surrealists or participate in the surrealist movement. I am for the removal of this link from the article because it contains misinformation, it is mainly promotional of Keith Wigdor, and has little information about surrealism. As for the links that Wigdor opposes, these include links to the Chicago surrealist group (www.surrealistmovement-usa.org) and numerous other surrealist groups, in Paris, London, Portland, Athens, etc. These are active surrealist groups, some of which have a historical connection to Breton's circle. I think it's important for these links to be on the site to show some of the contemporary surrealist activity, contrary to the claim by some that surrealism died out. Keith Wigdor has raised a number of objections to these links and has changed his argument several times; however, his most persistent problem seems to be the lack of photographs showing Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (founders of the Chicago group) meeting Andre Breton. He claims that if such photographs cannot be produced, then the Rosemonts must not have met Breton and they must be frauds. I think that this is some very specious logic; furthermore, it has little relevance regarding the Chicago group's relevance and activity. It seems now that Wigdor has relented a little on this, after I produced scans of the Chicago Group's Arsenal publication. Nevertheless, he persists in deleting the links unless his links are included has well. The other link he insists on including is clearly a commercial site promoting another painter. Well, I think I have summarized the tedious details well enough. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to answer them. I think a glance at the archived talk page might be enough to convince you of Wigdor's insanity. Thank you. [[User:TheEvilPanda|TheEvilPanda]] 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
I agree with Protector777.[[User:Classicjupiter2|Classicjupiter2]] 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:05, 27 January 2007
| This is Jaimie Henry's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
You Cool
You're Cool man, Hypothetical High five please?
My Apologies
I seem to have left my account logged in, and in my absence, a few mindless fools seem to have made changes to the page I was currently editing. Is it possible that you can revert the page to the acceptable edits my acconut made? I will make sure not to leave my account logged in from now on! Someone is also continually editing my comment to you, please forgive whatever profanities appear.
Firebringervt 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a problem. I've left a message on your talk page. I'll deal with this other sitaution. Jem 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Just a note, the BFA page still hasnt reverted to my most recent legitimate changes, (I had a picture and a data table loaded as well)
For you :)
|
||
| Glen is thrilled to award Jaimie Henry with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in the art of troll extermination, cruft elimination and for ensuring Wikipedia is safe for public consumption... You are a legend, please keep up the great work! Glen 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
User warnings have been updated
Heya, take a look at WP:UTM. Looks like the old warning templates are being deprecated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I made a change
I didn't vandal that page!?!
Unless you sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) I can't see who you are and can't comment on the revert I made. Please accept my sincere apologies if you feel I made the revert in error, and feel free to discuss this further with me here. Jem 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to add a picture. I edited the page. I fail to see what you could possibly hold as evidence of vandalism.Tah5tah 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)tah5tah
Warnings
Please make sure to add your signature when you leave a warning, and use subst: when you leave a warning. Example: use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} instead of {{uw-vandalism1}} as without the subst: the template is forced to load every time the talk page is loaded. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your VandalProof Application
Dear Jaimie Henry,
Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you only have 161 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
Why did you revert my added link to the nice guy article? Did you even visit the site before you deleted my edit? It is a very interesting site with lots of discussion and articles on the subject. Please explain!! :(
Danielos2 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jam, regarding SURREALISM article to prevent edit war and gain resolution
Jam, thanks so much for contacting me on my discussion page. The subsection, SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES in the EXTERNAL LINKS has been on the article for months without any problem until the users, THEEVILPANDA and TEXTURE SAVANT have come along to cause mischief. Also look at the edit history on the article and that will help. SURREALISM NOW! www.surrealismnow.com is specifically a SURREALIST ART and RESOURCES website for students and researchers and general art lovers. I have no problem with the other edits, I think it only fair to keep this link and the other one, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Classicjupiter2 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC).Classicjupiter2 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)forgot to sign, now I will.Classicjupiter2 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaimie, thanks for your kind intervention in this silly business. As far as I can tell, the trouble seems to have begun in 2004. Here is a link to the part of the archive where I think Wigdor begins his involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism/Archive_02#Keith_Wigdor He harasses Daniel C. Boyer and fills the talk page with rants and essays. Initially his posts are unsigned, but you'll notice that the style of writing is the same as, for example, the above post by Classicjupiter2 on your talk page. I think you can skim any page of the archive from there and see the extensive rants and sock-puppetry on the part of Wigdor leading to the present day. Throughout, many unsigned or unidentified users appear supporting Wigdor's claims. Apparently he even wrote an article about himself which was removed after a VfD. He has a severe bias against the Chicago Surrealist Group and other loosely affiliated groups, perhaps because they do not accept him as the "leader of the International Surrealist Movement." If you look at Wigdor's website www.surrealismnow.com you will notice that Wigdor's name appears on just about every page. The site bills itself "the official website of surrealism and its affinities," which IMO is such an obviously bogus claim that it already merits removal of the link. However, I've looked further and there is nothing to suggest that most or any of the artists listed on the site describe themselves as surrealists or participate in the surrealist movement. I am for the removal of this link from the article because it contains misinformation, it is mainly promotional of Keith Wigdor, and has little information about surrealism. As for the links that Wigdor opposes, these include links to the Chicago surrealist group (www.surrealistmovement-usa.org) and numerous other surrealist groups, in Paris, London, Portland, Athens, etc. These are active surrealist groups, some of which have a historical connection to Breton's circle. I think it's important for these links to be on the site to show some of the contemporary surrealist activity, contrary to the claim by some that surrealism died out. Keith Wigdor has raised a number of objections to these links and has changed his argument several times; however, his most persistent problem seems to be the lack of photographs showing Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (founders of the Chicago group) meeting Andre Breton. He claims that if such photographs cannot be produced, then the Rosemonts must not have met Breton and they must be frauds. I think that this is some very specious logic; furthermore, it has little relevance regarding the Chicago group's relevance and activity. It seems now that Wigdor has relented a little on this, after I produced scans of the Chicago Group's Arsenal publication. Nevertheless, he persists in deleting the links unless his links are included has well. The other link he insists on including is clearly a commercial site promoting another painter. Well, I think I have summarized the tedious details well enough. If you have any further questions I'll be happy to answer them. I think a glance at the archived talk page might be enough to convince you of Wigdor's insanity. Thank you. TheEvilPanda 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Protector777.Classicjupiter2 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)