User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/archive 1

Paul Bouche[edit]

Undeletion[edit]

Hi Daniel:

Apparently you are the only hispanic artist here other than me I am on a mission to get the article on Paul Bouche undeleted. I will post here (for you to revise) a copy of the revised article that was uploades this year (I kept a copy) non hispanics have no idea about who is notable or not for us. Please help in this campaign. By the way the links that they are looking for with proof of his emmy award etc are in the new article that was rammed of by Ducharris. Perhaps with your intercesion we might introduce some sence into these people's minds.

All the best, Rene Lake.

Here is the article...

Paul Bouche is a Television Producer & Entertainer. Best known as the creator and host of the popular television show "A Oscuras Pero Encendidos".

Paul launched “A Oscuras Pero Encendidos” in 1995 as the first Late Night Show specifically designed for the US Hispanic Market. After starting as a local Miami production, in 1998 Galavision (Univision’s cable network) signed a distribution deal to carry the program via cable TV to national Hispanic audiences in the United States. Based on the results in Galavision in June 2000 the Telemundo Network decided to sign up the show for National open air TV broadcast in America and Puerto Rico. Lead by Paul “A Oscuras Pero Encendidos”, spent 6 years on the air and generated over 1100 hours of entertainment content for Hispanics in America.

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/1997/03/03/newscolumn4.html

Since 1988, Paul garnered experience in the United States working in different production capacities in companies like: NBC, ABC and MTV. He founded his production company Astracanada Productions in 1995. To date Paul has created, developed and produced more than 1.500 hours of television including programs in English and Spanish and for different channels in Latin America and the United States like Telemundo, Galavision, America TV, Family Channel, the USA Broadcasting, and “Casa Club TV”.

Due to his successes and contributions to the world of the Spanish language entertainment, the TV industry has recognized Paul, receiving an EMMY Award from the National Academy Of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS) for his outstanding television work in 1997.

http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/97emwin.htm

Paul also has entertained national Hispanic Audiences through Radio Broadcasting. In 2000 he launched the popular program "Sobre Ruedas" for WQBA 1140AM, a Univision Radio station in the city of Miami. In September of 2001 Paul joined forces with Radio Unica Network to create, launch and host the national morning drive show "Arriba Con Paul". This 4-hour comedic morning show was broadcasted through a network of over 40 radio stations reaching 80% of the national Hispanic population. Since 1989 Paul has produced and hosted over 4,000 hours of entertainment talk radio.

http://www.radionotas.com/Newdev/htmlfiles/news02/oct_02/31_miami.htm

Currently, Paul Bouche and Astracanada Productions are developing new TV & radio formats and working on their most ambitious television production yet “La Boca Loca de Paul” in association with Zeal Television in London England.

Daniel Boyer,

How exactly does the Patriot Act violate the 4th amendment? I'm serious.

reynwah

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants be issued only on probable cause, and specifically descibing what or whom is to be searched or seized. The PATRIOT Act allows warrants to issue on a lesser standard and allows what amount to general warrants (see http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c=130). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:03 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi there,

When you're editing a page, I notice that you often add bits to the /talk page explaining what you just added. This is really unnecessary, as it's apparent what's been added from the article. The talk page is only really necessary if there's something controversial or unclear about the article that needs to be worked out.

Cheers,

DanKeshet, Tuesday, June 18, 2002

What's with the punching-ball and the milk-cow? You've created a weird title with an invalid redirect. Is there an encyclopedia article anywhere in this? Vicki Rosenzweig 13:34 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, it is on Guy Ducournet's book of that title about misrepresentations and lies about surrealism. I am trying to find what happened to this article. --Daniel C. Boyer

Hey, dude. I wrote that teeny blurb about "Les Automatistes" because there wasn't a thing there at all. Please clarify or edit it however you like! Sara Parks Ricker

Hi - I wonder if you could have a look at what I wrote at Talk:Four dimensional painting and Talk:Gas sculpture sometime? It seems to me that these are really non-articles, at least as they stand. If there's any more to say about them, it would be good if it could be said, because they are intriguing sounding subjects. Otherwise, they should be made to redirect to Joan Miro, in my opinion, which already contains as much info about them as the individual articles themselves. --Camembert

This might be a good idea. I've not been able to find as much information about them as I'd hoped. Unless anyone can answer my appeal for more info Camembert may have the best idea. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:13 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies, it appears some kind of strange edit event occured. It appeared that you had erased the article and its edit history. Apparently you did quite the opposite, effectively 'seconding it' by making a minor edit. Thanks for that, and for attention to this important (meta) matter.

Are you Daniel C. Boyer for real? Having made "Dead man"? Excuse me for asking an honest question. Sigg3.net

No apology necessary! I am Daniel C. Boyer all right! I was the director of The Dead Man which is a completely different movie from Jarmusch's Dead Man. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:17 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! I notice you sometimes drop by Talk pages and make suggestions. Nothng wrong with that! However, in many cases the improvement you suggest could be accomplished in the same amount of time it takes to make the suggestion. For example, I noticed your comment on Talk:Myth of mental illness, and so I whipped up a stub article at The Myth of Mental Illness (with the proper capitalization) and linked to it from anti-psychiatry. Be bold, man! ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 19:44 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Have you written this article? or do you have any idea about this article? (If you don't understand Korean, the title means "unmarried girl backdoor" or something.) Is it one of your work? --User:Xaos

Yes; it should be The Tailgating Spinster (title of my book of poetry). I apologise if my Korean is not good enough; perhaps you could provide a better translation of the title. --Daniel C. Boyer

OK. I'll try to find a better translation. But due to my poor english, I can't understand the title. Does Tailgating mean chasing closely? And does Spinster mean unmarried old woman? soax

Yes; "tailgating" means (when one is driving) to follow too closely behind the car (or truck) in front of you. A spinster is usually used to mean an unmaried old woman but it can mean an unmarried woman of any age (probably she would have to be old enough to be able to get married to qualify as a spinster). --Daniel C. Boyer 19:43 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

One last question concerning the translation. Is the spinster tailgating someone or being tailgated?

What would you like to put in that article? I have no idea what it is and how it should be described. Please put some contents (in english) in that article or in the discussion page. I'll translate it. BTW what does this have to do with An Junggeun? soax 12:43 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

The spinster is tailgating someone. For the article in English, see The Tailgating Spinster.

It doesn't have anything to do with him; it just is something separate about Korea/Korean I thought you might be interested in. --Daniel C. Boyer

(book) is distinction enough for Smith's Mental Hygiene book, which, incidentally, is more than a comedy book, though it is strongly comical. Koyaanis Qatsi

Ashcroftism is an orphan. Could you find some articles to link to it? Kingturtle 01:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I linked to it in John Ashcroft; I think this is a start. --Daniel C. Boyer

comments moved to talk:Daniel C. Boyer

Hey, I think you misunderstood me. ;) Check Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. --Dante Alighieri 20:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It is POV to state that your work is shown "around the world" as that indicates some worldy greatness which the user has no idea how to interpret. How many times were u shown in Somalia last year? How many exhibits are currently running in Bangladesh? It would be acceptable to give examples such as: "artwork was featured at the 2001 Tokyo Art Fair". Pizza Puzzle

This is certainly true. But I am not the author of the passage in question. --Daniel C. Boyer

It would be nice if your articles explained how one might view the artwork in question. Pizza Puzzle

I'm not sure what artwork you mean, but here is a rather over-elaborated reply. On my user page it has links to my mixed media work The Collapsed Horizon; my computer graphics The Death Mask of Justin Timberlake, Legendary History of the G8 and The Moonlit Lovers Hide in the Woods Bathed in the Sputtering Light of the Oyster Mushroom ; my oject made out of a PVC pipe trap, gouache, a chocolate-coated expresso bean and a decaffeinated coffee bean, "The Blue Fetish"; my Polaroid Self-portrait as a Kazakh; my design for the cover of Fat Little Bastard's CD Maldoror; my "movement of liquid down a vertical surface" work The Better Days We Went Sailing, and Looked at the Wind and the Breeze as a Greek Indicator of the Approach of Weather; a drawing to promote my poem "The Plush Heads". There is a problem with some of the links being dead, which I will have to deal with. Obviously, neither of my films and neither of my books (which are mentioned in the article on me), nor "Blair House," can be viewed online, as they are either film or paper-based only. --Daniel C. Boyer

I sit corrected. (with paddle-marks on my rump) The word seemed to me very stilted Finnish, and the plural "s" didn't help either. The one thing I had not considered was an American-Finn connection. Us Finns have emigrated to so many places it is all too easy to forget, some of them may have held onto a bit of the old culture. By the way, some of the old working songs by American-Finns are great!.In fact the American-Finn Finglish itself is great. It strikes me American-Finns are probably a minority not much featured on the political scene over there. Respectfully (all the more so after the correction) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 19:48 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Finns are the most prominent ethnic group in the Copper Country (Houghton, Keweenaw, Baraga and Ontonagon Counties in Michigan). They migrated here in the 19th century to work in the copper mines (almost all of which closed as of 1968, three years before I was born. In Hancock (where I was born) the street signs are bilingual and Hancock is the home of Finlandia University (formerly Suomi College). --Daniel C. Boyer

Oh, oh, oh, oh. I forgot. Kept it bottled up so long I forgot it was there. Was waiting for a legitimate cause for addressing you so I could tell you that have read many of your Grandpa's works on maths and the history of maths. If you keep up with him or his spirit, please tell him: "Nice done!". -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:22 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

His spirit; he died in 1976. But thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello,

Just noticed you kindly added yourself to the Psychopathology wikiproject. Let me know if you have any particular interests in this area, so we don't overlap. If you have any particular knowledge of artists or other famous people who have had mental illness, entries on those would be great. I'd like to include as many entries with a human element as possible rather than keep strictly to the academic side.

Cheers - Vaughan

My interest is chiefly in the antipsychiatry and involuntary commitment articles, though I have been quite involved in the schizophrenia article. I am also intersted in the subject of hysteria. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I read your comments on the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia page. I'd be in favor of removing everything except the intro until something that wasn't copied from an advocacy group can be added. Before I do that, however, I'd like to know your thoughts. 172

Dear Mr Boyer,

I read through your list of credentials and I have quickly realized that you are the creative type. Is there any place where I can go to work on collaborative fiction, because I tried writing a story with a few friends of mine about a fictional band and you recommended it for deletion. It doesn't bother me that you did that, or even that you called it junk. It is junk. That is the point. It is done for fun and to make people either laugh or spit. Now I realize that this is not the forum for such expression, and I was hoping that maybe you could direct me to somewhere I could continue a story like this without serious interuption. I appreciate your help. Mook.

I am very sorry but I do not recall this (the story in question or calling it "junk"). I also regret that the websites I used to know where you could do this sort of thing have since become defunct. I hope that you are able to find such a site. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"If you wish to add a new page to this list, please put it on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates first (see that page for further instructions)." --mav

Please don't create orphans. If you think The Forecast is Hot! is worthy of inclusion, link to it from somewhere else. --Eloquence 05:06 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you want to add to "Cunny" description in Rabbit, go right ahead, but "Rabbit" is definitely the only known name of refering to the adult creature in America at least. But, the article already does address "cunny". :)

May I make a general request? Longer articles on specific aspects of Surrealism would actually be informative and interesting, whereas single paragraphs identifying a title only as a work by a group I don't know anything about don't get me anywhere. It would, I think, be more useful if you spent a bit more time on each article and told us more--since this is an area few other Wikipedians are knowledgeable about--even if it meant fewer articles. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since Daniel C. here is pretty familiar with Surrealism and other matters related to it (or not), an article about it should be written by him, in my opinion. I don't mind hosting an external article about it on my server (Sigg3.net), which could be linked from wikipedia. Sigg3.net 16:01, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Talk:Fiji Island Mermaid Press. MB 20:23, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

"Standards are being applied to me that I have not seen argued for the application of to anyone else." Damn right they are, and you have no-one to blame but yourself. You had a chance to have an article or two in the main namespace of Wikipedia, but you blew it. With your disgusting self-promotion you've put everyone off-side, and now your presence here is under serious threat. I'm still arguing for you but I'm not sure why exactly. -- Tim Starling 01:23, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

I assume the anon remark on User talk:Daniel Quinlan was you. If so: You are using straw man to mean something it does not mean. Please read the definition. But don't worry too much, a lot of people don't know the real meaning ;). MB 18:19, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Your e-mail[edit]

Mr. Boyer,

Recently you sent me an email regarding the content on the page about you.

I would be happy to answer your concerns, but not via email; I believe it would be best for the project for the conversation to be visible to all. If you wish you may post the contents of the e-mail you sent to User_talk:Kat or another forum of your choosing. I have not done so because I make a presumption of confidentiality for any e-mails I receive. Kat 03:38, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Boyer,

Your insistence on keeping obscure details about surrealistic collage on the the collage page seems to be a continuation of your tendency for self-promotion. I am again going to attempt to remove it. If you feel it necessary to again add the self-promotional material, then I will take the issue to one of the other forums.

Cheers, SpeakerFTD 17:25, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear SpeakerFTD,

Your insistence on removing significant material on collage from the collage page is questionable, as is your calling my adding these details "self-promotion." Let's see. Where on the World Wide Web, in print, or in an exhibition has an inimage or landscapade of mine ever been shown? Where in Wikipedia is there a link between these subjects and myself? Is this anything other than a judgment that anything I do here is "self-promotional," evidence be damned? I am going to "again add" the material you so bizarrely see as "self-promotional." (See my comments at Talk:Collage.) --Daniel C. Boyer 19:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, could you please discuss you reasons for reverting on the Talk:United States Secret Service instead of starting a revertion war. Thanks. MB 22:55, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Hello there,

Just an note to say thanks for adding yourself to the Psychopathology WikiProject ! I've just added a review page so if you create any new articles, or want to watch out for new ones, add to the list or keep tabs on this page.

Thanks again - Vaughan 19:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi again, Boyer. I thought you'd be glad to know that I've framed your Anti-Racistic guitar (A tribute to Unu) and put it in the center of my livingroom:). Sigg3.net 10:58, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can you please not use cut and paste to move pages. The Surrealist Movement in the United States page, for example, now looks like you were the main author of it when this shows that a number of people had created that content. If you need to move to a place that already exists you can get an admin to temporarily remove the existing page. Angela 01:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

O.k., I'm sorry. Apologies to anyone who this effected. This was exactly the trouble I was having and I didn't know how to fix it. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:46, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No problem - Martin fixed it all. Angela 20:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Boyer, we have had our differences in the past, but that has long been settled through a polite exchange of apologies - so please let me say that you have my full respect as a fellow Wikipedian and I enjoy reading your contributions. However, I believe that there is one area of Wikipedia where your opinion could easily be perceived as biased, namely, matters of vanity pages and self-promotion. Your comment under [1] looks balanced, but as it says "Keep", it may nurture prejudice against you, and I would suggest that you think it over and perhaps withdraw it. Best regards, Kosebamse 09:56, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the word "claimed" is NPOV, as long as your claim is all we have. It does not imply a contrary claim. --Wik 19:20, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

A debate about the use of the term "Boyerism" should not take place on VfD. -- Cyan 21:05, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. But Wik should not bring up this vague, misleading, unhelpful term he pretends to have coined, though in uses both relating and not relating to me, it predates his "coinage." --Daniel C. Boyer 21:07, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On that matter we are in complete agreement. I deplore his use of the term. -- Cyan 21:13, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A debate about your contributions should not take place on VfD. -- Cyan 21:28, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this is right. Should this be cut and pasted somewhere else? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. You can use your own talk page, or maybe a subpage of it. You could try the Pump if you want high exposure, but the discussion would inevitably need a different final resting place. You could even move it to Wikipedia:Problem users/Daniel C. Boyer. -- Cyan 21:39, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You wrote:

If you object to my writing on Automatic mathematics, please edit rather than blanking!

I could not have done that; I had no idea what "automatic mathematics" is or what you were trying to say, but I could tell that what you had written was a completely incomprehensible run-on sentence that needed to go back to the drawing board.

As the article appears now, I doubt that "automatic mathematics" can be considered mathematics. Michael Hardy 21:48, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is not mathematics, stricta sensu. It is just called mathematics because it superficially uses mathematics forms (numbers, variables, mathematical symbols and so forth). You are absolutely right. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In tincture (heraldry) you wrote, "The colours rose and copper appeared in Canada in 1997." Could you please tell me more? - Montréalais 06:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sure; see http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/3238/Page3.html . --Daniel C. Boyer 13:37, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would be indebted if you would refrain from adding links to Wikipedia:Requested articles in the future, as your historical performance on that page has been poor, with many such articles requiring subsequent deletion. Martin 17:32, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am going to decline your request. I do not see my "historical performance" on that page as being "poor," and (with perhaps a very few exceptions) I do not see the articles I have requested as "requiring subsequent deletion." --Daniel C. Boyer 13:34, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the courteous reply. Martin

This request smacks of elitism. I am very surprised that Martin, of all people, would make it. -- Derek Ross

Nevertheless, I do make it. The continual creation and deletion of articles is in nobody's interest. Martin 17:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Neither is the continual editing and re-editing of text. But that is the very nature of the wiki, so I suppose that we're stuck with it. If only we could all produce perfectly written articles on perfectly relevant subjects, the first time, we wouldn't have to waste all that time correcting each others mistakes -- but it wouldn't be a wiki. -- Derek Ross

The continual editing of text tends to create better articles than anyone could write individually. The same cannot be said for the coninual creation and deletion of articles. Besides, nothing in the nature of a wiki prevents one person asking another if they would avoid making a certain type of edit. My request stands. Martin 18:05, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Could you fix the link to the nomination you made on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates It is appearing in red as I write. Thanks, Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:26, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I hope I am wrong, but what you are doing could be interpreted as an attempt to purge most surrealist-related material from Wikipedia. I hope you will respond to my concerns that you are removing articles on actual surrealist techniques and insinuating that I invented them when I did no such thing. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe this is in response to me listing your "decretage" and "Haifa method" pages on vfd, where they were subsequently deleted. Both of these terms produced no Google hits which were not wikipedia-related (well actually all, you-related). To be precise it was not I who 'purged' them, but the community who did when they decided that they should be deleted. Maximus Rex 00:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have not responded to my complaint as to your insinuation that I invented methods I did not, and you never responded to my repeated complaints about your inaccurate use of the term "Boyerism". --Daniel C. Boyer 15:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I stopped using the term "Boyerism" when you requested me to stop on November 24. I have not used it since and therefore I find your accusations quite puzzling. Maximus Rex 19:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you and my apologies. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Daniel,

I'm trying to find "parents" for the article on Blue Feathers. I'd like to add it to the List of magazines, but I'm not sure what category it belongs in. Could you either add it where appropriate or let me know where it belongs? Thanks.

- Anthropos 02:27, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I added it under Miscelaneous magazines, under U.S. It was the best I could do, as it's a surrealist magazine and didn't really fit into any of the other categories. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:45, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! -Anthropos 15:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, to answer your question about Richard Genovese -- I don't see (either in the article or from searching the web)

I believe that this admission can be characterized as confessing myopia. Did you make any attempt to search any of the cited print sources? Despite people's claims to the contrary, I am concerned that Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming a mere mirror of the Google search, when subjects that are well-documented outside Google (in print!) are characterised as "nonexistent" or "unimportant" on the basis of a Google search turning up only a few hits. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

that more than a few people have even noticed he's around. That's what makes him insignificant. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Phyllis Braff, a notable art critic for the New York Times: Seeking Shivers of Recognition in a Bizarre Context

JH Matthews is highly regarded for his examination and discussion of Surrealism contextually as a vibrant and ongoing movement.

Do you have any other page on the 'net with a total list of works than this one? - Sigg3.net 12:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

surrealism (art)[edit]

Hi Daniel,

Your email account was over quota, so I'm pasting the email I sent you here.

Unfortunately, all of the world outside Wikipedia that I have ever encountered considered Surrealism primarily as an art form. I would argue that in general use most people think "surrealist art" when they think "surrealist" (I did a Google test on "surrealist" and got 223,000 hits, and "surrealist art" was 111,000, implying that nearly 50% of all articles on surrealism are on surrealist art), but I concede that there must be other aspects of the movement. While you may feel the general public (or at least myself) is uninformed and overlooks the majority of the Surrealist movement, Surrealism as an art movement was significant when looking at the art community.

I would like to see an article discussing the manifistation of surrealism in art, for example Dali, deChirico, and Magritte are all labelled surrealist artists. As an art movement, it came after artists such as Picasso made breakthrough non- representational works, and shows the progression in Western art from works done from memory, to works done from life, to works done from imagination. If you consider Duchamp a part of the surrealist (art or greater) movement, his display of a urinal, pitchfork, window, etc, as ART allowed others to realize that design is an art form.

You might compare my request for a surrealism (art) page spinning off from surrealism to the pages on abstract art and abstraction. There is much more to the concept of abstraction than mere art, yet abstraction in art was/is a significant movement.

Thanks for asking for my opinion. I'm a fan of surrealist art (especially old school surrealist photography before Photoshop), and while I can give my reasons for why I feel it's important, they're not well founded enough to feel I can write a good article on it. I guess I could start one based on this email, if it were acceptable by the contributors to to surrealism page, and the others will clean it up when they come along.

--zandperl 00:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Duchy of Pinica[edit]

Thanks for the info. I can understand now why the Imperial Post article exists but not why some articles exist and others don't. Is the Imperial Post verifiable but not the Duchy? Are any of them verifiable? Are they discounted as a hoax? (I could see that being the case.) How widely is the Imperial Post and the Duchy known? - Texture 19:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Empire of Upper and Lower[edit]

>What is the basis for your complaint on the Votes for undeletion page about The Empire of Upper and Lower being said to comprise almost all of Houghton County, Michigan? This is just the claim it makes, absurd though it may be.

My "complaint" was merely a statement of its absurdity. That has nothing to do with my vote. On the VfU my only statement of whether it should be undeleted is that the vote was valid and the concensus to delete. I doubt I would have voted to delete it but based on the proper vote and my own view of the absurdity of the article I will not vote to undelete. - Texture 21:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dalí and Paranoic-critical method[edit]

As I mention on Talk:Salvador Dalí, might you wish to take the first stab at an article on paranoia-criticism? I like Wikipedia to get the Dalí and related articles in decent shape for his centennial on 11 May. I appreciate your apparent open-mindedness about Dalí; a friend once remarked that she could never be a surrealist because she couldn't get herself to hate Dalí enough ;-) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vanity press[edit]

I'm interested how the vanity press can charge for copies if they are not even bound. Can anyone give any source on this? How common is this problem? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is a discussion of that phenomenon in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. I don't remember the details, but I think that the publisher pretends to market copies to libraries etc..., but doesn't, and saves money by not even finishing to bind them. David.Monniaux 16:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Anthony was suggesting that you move the article out of your talk space, not that you create a redirect that was already deleted.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. When was the article in my talk space? If I'm done something wrong, I'm sorry, but could you more fully explain your point? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you move the article I cannot delete it under deletion guidelines.

Why? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You recreated the redirect that was deleted under Candidates for speedy deletion #7. I have deleted the redirect under Candidates for speedy deletion #5 since it was not undeleted by a concensus from the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion page. - Tεx τ urε 14:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the #5 but as you can imagine I have a continuing problem with #7. You are inaccurately describing the content which was article-space content and then moved to the user space as part of this stupid temporary solution, as thus user-space content justifying the use of the redirect. Which would mean that the temporary solution would immediately trigger the triumph of those who said that there should be no article. Which is not to say that they are wrong, but clearly this is unfair and was never the idea. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the talk content you have written to your user talk space so that nothing is lost: User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/undelete - Tεx τ urε 14:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have content in your user space. As such, it is not an article just as anyone creating a new or reformatted article in their user space does not have an article but just something they are working on in their user space. Until it is in article space it is not an article. (IMO)

But once again, it was originally an article that was moved by others to my user space (as a temporary solution to the "dispute" over the article). Not only does this immediately undermine the temporary compromise of moving the temp article into my user space (as it would then fall under #7 of speedy deletion by your estimation) but this obscures the fact that it was in the article space with most of the same content before the redirect was created. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If your only objection to Anthony's suggestion to move it back is that it will go on VfD then I don't see your reason as valid. Otherwise, everyone who loses a vote will move the articles deleted to their user space and create redirects from article space to user space. If the undelete vote is to restore the redirect then it will be undeleted. If the undelete vote is to keep it deleted then you can either accept that or move the article back and deal with any VfD vote if it happens. - Tεx τ urε 17:42, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well. This is not my only objection, so as a matter of fact I am going to withdraw the article from Votes for undeletion, replace it at Daniel C. Boyer, put a VfD notice on it and list it on Votes for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless you can actually explain why you should be listed on the IOUMA article--why your "position" has some objective reality--please stop re-adding your name. Your unexplained reversions are left with one explanation which doesn't leave you looking very good. Wikipedia is not the forum for self-promotion, and unless you can explain otherwise, that's all the addition of your own name accomplishes. I am going to delete your name again. Please don't add it again. Postdlf 2:23 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have responded to both of your comments on my talk page. --Postdlf 18:33 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mall Goths[edit]

I'm thinking that a whole section on the main Goth page could be written about the perception of Goth posers and fakers, which would include the term Mall Goth...from my understanding, it's a pretty big issue in the subculture, and broader than just that one term. Mall Goths should be a redirect to the main article. What do you think? I'm also surprised there's no mention of Anne Rice or vampires generally on the Goth page (which could also likely be drawn into the issue of posers, I s'pose, but it's there in the culture however much some Goths think it's ridiculous). Postdlf 00:28 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes; if there could be a well-done section on this and the info in particular on "Mall Goths" is not very extensive "Mall Goth" by all means should be merged into the Goth article. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

Daniel, I would like to draw your attention to the guidelines in Wikipedia:User page. Your user page may not comply with the guidelines. I suggest that you edit your user page accordingly. UninvitedCompany 16:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Template:VfD-Fyksland[edit]

If you are interested, Fyksland (Template:VfD-Fyksland) has gotten relisted on VfD a couple weeks after it was kept with no consensus to delete. - Tεx τ urε 18:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; I just voted there. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question about Surrealism article[edit]

I'm curious as to how you would say surrealism has transformed "everyday life." I don't know if you were the one who added that line in the first paragraph, but I thought you'd probably have a good answer 'cause it's your pet topic. Thanks! Postdlf 10:16 7 May 2004 (UTC)

While admitting that perhaps this is not the best wording (to what extent surrealism has been successful is a matter of debate), your question is somewhat curious -- it's like asking "how would you say that communism has transformed 'everyday life'"? Because this was always the chief goal surrealism set for itself.[2] "[T]he belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought, [the tendency] to ruin once and for all all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life" is obviously chiefly of extra-artistic application.

In terms of the surrealist principles with the greatest impact on everyday life, in its attempt to merge the supposedly contradictory states of dreaming and waking life into an absolute reality, surrealism's anti-miserabilism[3] and the theories of objective chance (objective chance in particular has the capability of setting into motion chains of adventure), paranoia-criticism (and no, the application of this is not restricted to the making of Dalinian paintings), the active promotion of inspired laziness and the surrealist struggles against work (May 1968's spraypainted slogans on the walls of the Sorbonne showed the degree to which the rebellion was surrealist-inspired), and coercive psychiatry, and attempts at the eroticisation of everyday life have played a major role. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gas sculpture[edit]

Could you explain the definition of gas sculpture (does it need to be unbounded? Or could it be contained?) Also why is the sculpture at the American history musuem not a gas sculpture (I only found a vague reference that called it a kinetic sculpture.) Rmhermen 21:16, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

As Miro describes it it seems he intends it to be unbounded; hence the amazing property (as it might tend to dissipate). I've not seen the sculpture at the American history museum but it seems to be contained and thus not what Miro is talking about; perhaps I should have said it is a gas sculpture but defined more loosely. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist techniques picture request[edit]

Hi Daniel. I am currently trying to fulfill requests on the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page. Almost a year ago you placed a number of requests for Surrealist techniques on Wikipedia:Requested pictures. On your user page you have some external image links for some of the requested techniques. I assume you do not want to release your work under the GNU public license, but I was wondering if you could release a smaller image or a draft of your work to Wikipedia. If not, no problem. After all it seems you make your living with your art. I just thought it's worth asking you first, since I have difficulties finding other sources. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I made a movement of liquid down a vertical surface under the GNU licence that is now on the surrealist techniques page. Hopefully this is o.k. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me! Thank you very much. You wouldn't also have an example of a Coulage, Cubomania, Étrécissements, or Outagraph by any chance? -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an example of cubomania. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an example of an outagraph. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you very much. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I re-removed surrealism and surrealist techniques from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. These pages have already been protected, by Angela, per your request, as she noted when she removed them from the list. UninvitedCompany 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surrealism Wikipedia[edit]

Hey Dan,

Is there anyway you can fix the wikipedia "surrealism" entry? It seems Keith Widgor has sabotaged it. -- Brandon Freels

I've been trying to; I even got page protection but unfortunately 24.168.92.117, who may very well be Keith Wigdor, got the jump on me so what is protected is the Wigdor-slanted version. I'm not sure how to proceed further. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has now been done, and the page is unprotected. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

63.169.104.2[edit]

I have left a message for 63.169.104.2 asking him to stop. He'll be blocked if he ignores it, by me if necessary. Regards, UninvitedCompany

Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FISA[edit]

i noticed that you have a wiki link in the FBI talk page linking to FISA. I have created a disambig page for this acronym, and i wonder what FISA yours is? i don't think it's formula 1 racing or crew...? - Lethe 10:05, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; it's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I've added that to the disambiguation page. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks Lethe

CRAVEN DESTINY[edit]

Dear Daniel C.Boyer, Can you please explain what you and your friends exactly meant by this threat? In fairness to you (and your friends), I guess that this was just a harmless little silly letter that was just meant as mild satire. However for someone (including your friends here) who is So Passionate about Surrealism (and the integrity of Surrealism on here), can I ask you this; IF you(and your friends) did not show up at the WAH Center's, BRAVE DESTINY Surrealism show and, "Burn all the paintings and throw all the squirming participants, ridiculous costumes and all, into the East River", then you admit that what you say in your collective statements regarding Surrealism is False! Here is your (and your friends)exact words; "CRAVEN DESTINY What would you think if someone, after almost a century of an organized,self-conscious movement, came along and claimed to speak and act for that movement, while remaining completely ignorant of its aims and principles? This is exactly what is happening at the Williamsburg Art and Historical Center under the guise of their Brave Destiny exhibition,in which New Age angel and unicorn painters -- led by such wizards of recuperation as Professor Ernst Fuchs, H.R. Giger, and the Society for Art of the Imagination -- conjoin with bourgeois hoopla about cash prizes, fashion shows, and artistic prestige to create a flagrant misrepresentation of surrealism. Surrealism stands for the revolution of the mind, for the manifestation of poetry in everyday life, for the revolt of the pleasure principle against the confines of the existing social reality, and for poetry made by all, not one! Surrealism wants nothing less than the radical transformation of the world, and spits on anyone clinging to the repressive corpse of consumer capitalism and its art specialists! To this end, we will converge upon this exhibition during its final days, burn the paintings, and hurl the squirming participants, ridiculous costumes or not, into the East River! Frank Antonsen, Johannes Bergmark, Daniel C. Boyer, Eric Bragg, Richard Burke, Susan Burke, Stephen Clark, Tom Clarkson, Andrew Daily, Barrett John Erickson, Jill Fenton, Sarah Frances, Brandon Freels, Richard Genovese, Parry Harnden, Dale M. Houstman, William Howe, Stuart Inman, Philip Kane, Morgan Miller, Ribitch, MK Shibek, Darren Thomas, Andrew Torch, Chris Webster, Darryl Lorenzo Wellington, Zazie." So, Dan, you can admit that you(and your friends) do not speak on behalf of this movement, nor are you and your friends really passionate about maintaining the aims and principles of Surrealism, since it is a fact that nothing happened, none of your friends showed up at the WAH to, "burn the paintings" as you said you would do as indicated by the above letter. The above letter was just a silly prank, correct?

Poland's Betrayal by the Western Allies[edit]

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD--naryathegreat 23:44, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/24.168.92.117[edit]

Hi. I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117 (Keith Wigdor). I saw that you've had persistent problems with this user, and I was wondering if you'd want to certify the dispute. Quadell (talk) 17:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

STILL NO ANSWER[edit]

Daniel, you have not provided any answer to my question. Where is the picture of the Rosemonts with Breton? They claim to have met him. Where did Franklin and Penelope meet Andre Breton? Was it in a cafe? Where? What about any statement by Zazie condemning WEBISM? She is obviously not a surrealist and never was a surrealist. Digital Capitalism is what her art is about, you know, "commodities". Daniel, are you a surrealist?

Your thoughts on Post-surrealism[edit]

I just wanted to notify you that I copied what you wrote on the deleted article called Post-Surrealism to http://www.sigg3.net/meta/post_surrealism.html - Sigg3.net 08:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Malicious Deletion Attempt=[edit]

Hello. Sorry for the imposition, but I thought you might be interested to note that an article you supported in the past on vfd has been listed again under malicious circumstances - the 3rd such attempt in 7 months. Please feel free to review the discussion and cast your vote as you feel appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium --Gene_poole 10:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you; I have voted again to keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a balanced view. There certainly seem to be a fair few axes being ground of late! --Gene_poole 00:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel[edit]

Daniel, I am shocked! Why do you choose not to contribute anything to the article on Louis Aragon!? Also, Daniel, do you think we need an article on Brandon or his new friend Babek? As you know, my dutch is not that good, Hahahahaha!!!! Just kidding. Dan, seriously, I thought any of your contributions would be all over the Louis Aragon article, after all he wrote, "Red Front"!

Hey Dan, just to let you know, that Keith is not Babek, so Brandon need not to worry. I give you my word as word is born! Also, where is the pictures of the Rosemonts with Breton like 24... was asking? We all need to know.

Nomination for article un-deletion[edit]

Hello. I noted your recent support for the Empire of Atlantium article on VfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium The most recent VfD resulted in 19 people (40%) voting to retain vs 29 (60%) voting to delete. Despite the fact that the count was fully 9 votes short of achieving a 2/3 consensus, the article has been deleted by a sysop. Because this appears to contravene VfD policy I have listed the article for un-deletion, which you might care to review and support, if you feel it is a valid listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion --Gene_poole 04:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)--

Mary Ann Caws[edit]

Daniel,we need an article on Mary Ann Caws. What do you think?

I think this would be something of a good idea, so long as it included the severe criticisms of her made by Franklin Rosemont, Arsenal et. al.; was NPOV, including both sides, and not merely a glowing tribute. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Daniel, I agree with you 100%. I would love to see what article is presented and I give my word that I will not revise this one, since I am cherishing the moment to read what Franklin and the others at Arsenal have to say about her. This I am really looking forward to reading. Break it out, Daniel, Please.

Barnstar[edit]

File:SurrealistBarnStar.jpg

Surrealist Barnstar

I award you this Surrealist Barnstar, for your tireless efforts in reverting Surrealism -- Solipsist 22:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duchy of Natatoria[edit]

An image of the stamps (as offered) would be nice. Rich Farmbrough 11:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Paranoiac-critical method: Help, Is there a Surrealist in the house?[edit]

I made a first stab at an article on the Paranoiac-critical method. Knowledgable input would be much appreciated. -- Infrogmation 21:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Surrealist Movement in the United States[edit]

We seem to be having a sort of low-intensity edit war with the anonymous user over at Surrealist Movement in the United States. What's going on? I left a message on the anon's talk page, but nothing came of it. I didn't revert a second time because I wanted to hear his or her response. (That said, I trust that an actual surrealist painter's opinion of the US surrealist momvement is probably an accurate one!) --Ardonik.talk() 15:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous user has reverted your change again (in addition to my own). What's going on? Have either of you attempted to reach consensus over this? --Ardonik.talk() 21:57, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

My suspicion is that it may not be possible, as it seems 63.169.104.2 has some kind of axe to grind about the subject. He repeatedly asks for photographs, which for some reason have to be online, of various individuals, otherwise (for no reason he can, or cares to, explain, "they do not exist;" see below under Brandon Freels, who he has decided, for some reason, is a "fictitious person" who nevertheless is capable of writing several books). I have never encountered this kind of research standard before, where photographs have to be produced of everyone mentioned, despite exhaustive other forms of documentation. For a while, the Surrealist Movement in the United States didn't have a website (it again has one at http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/), and he used this to argue that it had ceased to exist (though it was nevertheless continuing to conduct many activities, he used this webcentric argument); this claim persisted even with the advent of the new website. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Typical net.kookery then? Any idea who this guy is, and why he or she sports such a grudge? Has this person made any attempt to reach any form of consensus with you? I ask this because someone else just reverted the article back to its pre-anon state; if the anon has turned down any attempt at reasoned discussion, we may be dealing with a vandal. --Ardonik.talk() 00:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I find this issue pretty interesting, in a cyberpunk kind of way. The internet is widely regarded as a "secure" place for collecting information, and in most matters there are indeed several volumes of matters that have been dealt with "offline" beforehand and then has been adopted to the web. Lately we're seeing the opposite, information reaching the web that never has been considered "important enough" or for some other reasons haven't been printed "officially". The interesting thing here is that the user in casu seems to regard the internet as a standard for what is and what is not (the truth), thus revealing a growing tendency among a younger generation that hasn't been (in my opinion) familiarized with the level of checking several sources up to each other before concluding _this is_ or _this is not_ (the truth), a process that would seem necessary in the eyes of pre-webdominant generations. In other words, information outside the web (which is immensely huge, I'm sure we all can agree upon), may seem not to reach approval among these uncritical webusers. Interesting indeed. - Sigg3.net 09:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. I think it is part of a general trend; I can only speak for my own country, but in the United States there is a widespread lack of skepticism. It crosses generational bounds: people watch the news and believe every word they're subjected to, watch commercials without evaluating underlying motives, and surf the web looking for sites that agree with their biases. On the other hand, traiditional media outlets are such a failure that a growing number of people—including me—consider the Internet to be a superior alternative. That's no excuse for not checking the facts, but we're not used to it because we did so little of that offline.
This encyclopedia is also part of the cesspool of truth and lies that is the Web, but it's different. Was it Jimmy Wales who said that there is a sort of parallel WWW developing within the Wikipedia? I disagree because the Web doesn't have VFD and a community dedicated to keeping the nonsense out. We're better than the Web. I don't think we're there yet, but it's inevitable that we'll rise to a position of being an online authority (assuming the community remains active and MediaWiki scales properly over the next few years.) It's still an open question as to whether we'll surpass offline authorities like Encyclopedia Brittanica.
All this is moot, of course. The person who we're dealing with will probably demand more proof even if supplied with online pictures. The anon is just a kook. --Ardonik.talk() 16:59, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The anon has replied (!), so I'm taking the conversation over to Talk:Surrealist Movement in the United States. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this edit war. --Ardonik.talk() 18:21, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Navassa Island[edit]

Hi Daniel,

I have responded to your query on the Haitian claim on Navassa Island/La Navase on it's talk page. Enjoy! - iHoshie 18:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel C.Boyer[edit]

Daniel, can you please be so kind as to show us where we can find any photo of this, "Brandon Freels" surrealist? There is an article on this fictitious person and I cannot understand why Wigdor or Lindall can be disputed here on Wikipedia, but the public can easily find there pictures online? After all this is a research oriented pedia and it is only right that we all know the facts. Where is the picture of Brandon Freels? I know there is a picture of Mrs. Rosemont who is a surrealist, why no picture of, "Freels"? Daniel, why do you defend an article about an imaginary person? Daniel, where is the picture of, "Brandon Freels"?

Go to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965319423/qid=1095032487/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4547198-2255805?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . But why this demand for the pictures of all sort of people? He wrote a number of books. Why (other than that you dislike him) do you describe him as "imaginary"? --Daniel C. Boyer 23:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel[edit]

Daniel, why do you provide a picture of a book? Daniel, I also requested that the article be removed for the benefit of us all and the entire Wikipedia community. I kindly suggest that this article, "Brandon Freels" be removed. I would like to thank Daniel C.Boyer for providing a picture of a book, but he did not lead us to any photograph of this person to prove that he is real.

Query[edit]

What is the purpose of the redirect you just created at User:Mr. Bouyer? Nothing links to it and I can't imagine why anything ever would. Isomorphic 19:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Hi Daniel, I see you removed a section of text from the anti-psychiatry article. This text was just contributed by User:Samvak, who has asked for feedback in Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology/Review. I think he would appreciate it if you'd tell him why you removed his contribution. Sietse 16:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a joke, right?[edit]

That staggeringly long article title you just created about a UN resolution - you're too experienced to have done it by error, so I assume it's some sort of joke/protest/commentary/artproject? And you won't be surprised when it's moved to a reasonably titled alternative?- DavidWBrooks 19:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a resolution, it was the staggeringly long name of the sub-commission itself (and it didn't even get it all in). So it's not a joke, it's just the ridiculously long name of the sub-commission; I didn't know a better way to do it but if you do, be my guest. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletionist campaign[edit]

Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Martin Luther King[edit]

Hi Daniel, I notice that you placed a note at the talk page for Martin Luther King, which, I agree, should refer to the senior of the name, but redirects to MLK, Jr.

There is no discussion page and no history. Was there a consensus reached?

I'm going to at least enter a disambig page. Just because no one has yet written an entry on 'Daddy King' does not mean that there shouldn't be one or that MLK should redirect, IMO. Quill 10:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I regret to say I've not followed this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Alteredlitho.jpg[edit]

Could you confirm the copyright status of this image. If it isn't free then it will have to be deleted, but I want to prevent that if possible Zeimusu 02:50, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

It was sent to be by Richard Genovese for use on Wikipedia, who licenced it for use on Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism[edit]

Your behavior is unacceptable, I have submitted this to an RFC, and will, if necessary, call for expedited procedures to have you banned from editting the page as an individual who cannot write NPOV material. Stirling Newberry 20:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your behaviour has been unacceptable with regards to the surrealism article in several respects. You repeatedly vandalise the surrealism article to promote your POV, and your revisions have contained a number of inaccuracies you have reverted several times. You have also removed material that should be placed in contrast to other POV claims; e.g. if you are going to mention Alexandrian's claim that surrealism ended in 1966, one would practically have to mention (because of relevance) Breton's claim that surrealism would continue after him. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Hi. I reverted an edit by 65.174.35.65 to your user page. If this was you not having logged in, sorry. -- Infrogmation 17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Surrealist Group of Pakistan[edit]

Good afternoon. I just refactored a number of your comments in this discussion thread. I really appreciate your input and the facts that you bring to the discussion. Could I ask, however, that you refrain from interweaving your comments into the comments of others? It makes the discussion much harder to follow and much harder for subsequent readers to understand the development of the discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cantaloupe as a charge: source?[edit]

Do you have a source for the cantaloupe being used as a charge in heraldry? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, I wanted to reply to you here[edit]

Daniel, I wanted to reply to you here, so that the Gallery Black Swan VfD page does not get overwhelmed with our discussions. I sincerely disagree with you on your statement that I am trying to, "purge" all surrealism related material from Wikipedia. Daniel, first, you need to accept the reality of this fact: Surrealism is an art movement that evolved out of a movement that was originally intended for the transformation of the world, you know this obvious fact. For you to keep saying that surrealism is not an art movement, contradicts your own creative drive as well, because you do create artworks. Yes, Surrealism also exists in literature, poetry, critical theory, etc, but it is the art that stands out. Yes, I do fully agree that Anarchism is very much part of Surrealism and the collective actions that people take can also be considered surrealist, yet, there is practically nothing that can help any of US be convinced that your version of surrealism is really active and alive. One obvious fact is that your friends create art, their websites(and forums) are totally do-it-yourself soapboxes claiming that they are the real surrealists, yet we have very little to go on. Daniel, if you were to show us material that can verify the work produced by these people, then I can be more supportive of your cause. There really is no current, "surrealist" groups, oh yes, there is a lot of yahoo internet activity and plenty of online boards and forums, but that does not cut it. You need to produce credible sources of material that can justify having an article on this encyclopedia website. Say for example, if your, "surrealist" friends in Portland, were to have an event, exhibit, whatever that was truly surrealist, with any press coverage, (anything) then I can support an article, but I don't buy into what is obviously very bogus. These people that are your friends, address surrealism with such a gesture of social interaction that it really is not the real surrealism, at all. Please prove me wrong. What about an International Surrealism event, one that we can all see is the real thing, no webists either. Show me and I can support your cause, if not, then the votes prove what is already obvious.Classicjupiter2 00:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Really? Amazing, "Classicjupiter2". I thought you were trying to prove that surrealism isn't notable. If that was your intention or not, you seem to be doing a great job of making that argument. Note I've voted to keep surrealism related articles with 1000 + google hits &/or a mainstream print reference, neutral on ones in the 100s of hits, and delete on the less google hits unless there was some other evidence of notability. Perhaps there's a better yardstick of notability, but for this type of article it hasn't yet been shown to me. Mr. Boyer, might I suggest anarchopedia.org as a possible place for such articles if Wikipedia won't keep them? Also, I think Wikipedia could use some guidelines for notability in the arts similar to the music guidelines; if Mr Boyer or "Jupiter" have input into how to establishing such that might be of interest. Pondering, -- Infrogmation 07:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're joking that Classicjupiter2 is "doing a great job of making that argument." I wish you would explain what you mean by "this type of article" but would like to question how "guidelines for notability in the arts" would apply to this, as I would ask you to note that Classicjupiter2 in his own reply mentions about the extra-artistic activities of surrealism, before then going on to characterise surrealism as solely an artistic movement (!). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To state things plainly with no sarcasm, yes, it looks to me more that Classicjupiter2 is acting to get rid of articles related to surrealism rather than articles with little notability. I suspect this is some sort of vendeta due to the listing of the Wigdor article on VFD. I wonder if perhaps there was thinking on the lines of "if my clique/hero/self/whatever is placed on VFD, then everyone else with any relation to surrealism should be deleted too", but of course that's nothing more than one person's guess at someone else's motives.

I think a number of the surrealism related articles recently listed on VFD are adiquately notable, as verified by info elsewhere on the web or in print. Others did indeed look completely unnotable from all I could see-- for example, a surrealist group that gets 6 google hits makes me wonder if it is a small group of friends who perhaps meet once a month at a coffe house to discuss surrealism-- I can see no reason why it would be more notable than a similar small group that meets to discuss, say, current events, or quilting, or Star Trek -- non notable unless it can be shown that they have done something notable. Having some sort of criteria for what constitutes notability similar to the music wikipedia standards might be useful for other topics, arts, surrealism, etc. I think someone who curates a museum show of 80 artists that gets mentioned in a national newspaper is clearly notable. If two junior high school students read a magazine article about surrealism and then declare themselves to be the Yoknapatawpha Surrealism Group, IMO that is not notable. Knowing where to draw the line in between those examples I think is a useful question to consider if one wishes Wikipedia's coverage of surrealism related topics not to suck. -- Infrogmation 16:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infrogmation, I am all for Surrealism! Since the death of Andre Breton back in 1966 and his group officially disbanding in 1969 by Jean Schuster, Surrealism ended as movement.

Leaving aside the debatable issue of the "disbanding" of the Paris Surrealist Group, this ignores that Breton specifically said that surrealism would go on after his death, and that there were many groups other than the Paris at the time of Breton's death. Could you state any reason why you would think that surrealism would end with the death of Breton while it would be viewed as ridiculous, say, if we said that communism ended with the death of Marx? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C.Boyer and his friends are trying to tell everyone that they are the real thing, but they are not. Franklin Rosemont claims to be the successor of Andre Breton, but there is no successor to Breton and the groups that Boyer and his friends make up are bogus. Since Boyer admits that, "Surrealism is not an art movement" then why is it that Boyer and his friends are artists?

Again, leaving aside certain complexities, how do you explain the activities of those in the groups you accept as surrealist of people who were not artists but only writers, and people who were neither artists nor writers? Is any group with artists (loosely defined) in it therefore an art movement? Be serious. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not purging Wikipedia of all Surrealism articles. The nominations are for articles that have nothing to do with the facts regarding surrealism, just look at the votes. Daniel and his friends have an infinite platform for their promotion machine, they have all the Yahoo Groups, Forums, Bulletin Boards, etc., etc., etc., that are online, but they should not be using this encyclopedia for promoting their, "movement". Daniel clearly states that, "Surrealism in not an art movement", remember that statement. As for Surrealism, I love surrealism! Andre Breton was a genius, Dali was brilliant, Artaud should never have been, "kicked out" and also Louis Aragon too! Surrealism has been revived in art circles during the past couple of years and time will tell whether or not their results are notable. Daniel and his friends' version of surrealism is "not an art movement".Classicjupiter2 17:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Breton and his friends' "version of surrealism" was "not an art movement" and if you would have read anything they ever wrote you would know that. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, please do not attack me. I read many of the surrealism books and surrealism is an art movement, even if Breton intended it to be a platform for revolution and change, it became an art movement and that is the way history sees it. Surrealism started out as public agitation, protests, scandals, etc., etc., but ended up becoming a huge art movement that influenced many movements in the 20th century. Surrealism today, Daniel, is an art movement. Surrealism is not a coconut!Classicjupiter2 18:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You leave aside the possibility that there can be misconceptions about history, and indeed there are many. The "public agitation, protests, scandals, etc." continue today; if you read Surrealist Subversions (e.g.) you will see that. You leave aside the uninterrupted continuity of surrealism from Breton's time to the present day (e.g. the Czech group, though you will not respond on this point). Basically, here is what you have done. You have said that surrealism today is an art movement, which is why that the "public agitation, protests [and] scandals" of today are not a relevant part of it, and since it is lacking in agitation, protest and scandals it is just an art movement. Then you say, for reasons you decline to state, that the surrealists of today are not surrealists. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, Ron Sakolsky is probably a real cool guy and a trip to hang out with, but remember, Ron is a pirate-radio expert and friends with Franklin. Granted, Ron can tell you anything you need to know about LPFM and Frequency Modulation, upper side band, lower side band, 455kHz Intermediate Frequency, etc., etc., but he is not a surrealist nor is he an, "expert" on surrealism. That book, "Surrealist Subversions" is bogus, there really is no credible surrealist movement alive today that operates according to the aims and principles set forth by Andre Breton. Daniel, what you do have is an overabundance of hobbyists, thrill-seekers, and over-opinionated loudmouths who are really full of shit, no offense, Dan, but that is the way it is. The last real official Surrealist Exhibition was in 1965, what you have today is a revival and some of what is being revived is a lot more credible than, "Craven Destiny" or any "International Surrealists" that exhibit in Webism events, really.Classicjupiter2 21:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You do not explain how being a pirate radio expert disqualifies you from being a surrealist. You do not explain what you find "incredible" about the surrealist movement today. You do not explain what is bogus about "Surrealist Subversions." You do not account for the uninterrupted continuity of surrealism from its founding to the present day; you simply ignore evidence of it. You ignore that the surrealists you accept were quite "opinionated". You do not state why you think that the last official surrealist exhibition was in 1965. You do not have a leg to stand on. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, I never said that being a pirate radio expert disqualifies oneself from being a surrealist. There is a surrealist movement that does exist today, it is an art movement composed of artists of all mediums/illustrators/writers and poets that create visual and other media. You will find many examples of surrealism online today. Many surrealists are opinionated but few actually produce the sufficient results to transform life itself. The 1965 surrealist exhibition was the last, "official" exhibition, though there have been exhibits that only their significant cultural impact will prove that their results and creations are worthy of the surrealist label and credible enough to be notable. The 1976 World Surrealist Exhibit received negative press because it was bogus and they were wise to Rosemont and his agenda. As for, "protests, scandals. etc., etc.," you and your friends, Daniel, need to follow through on your word and at least show up to the events that you protest against, yet you do not. Leaving posts in AOI forum don't cut it. Getting the boot from NowSurreal UK don't cut it. Having Eric attack Wigdor on his coconut website don't cut it. Producing flame wars as evidence to denounce one who opposes your agenda to capitalize on the marvelous don't cut it. Either way, this is a void that consumes everything and proves absolutely nothing. Daniel, if you REALLY believe in Surrealism, you and your comrades would put up a better fight. Wikipedia is not the place for your promotion machine, let your results and experiments stand on their own merits and let the public judge whether or not you and your friends are surrealist. I never denounced Breton, never. You know that, Dan.Classicjupiter2 03:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The undeletion of your former article[edit]

I happened to notice that 65.174.34.14, the IP that proposed your eponymous article for undeletion last August[4] (see also Template:VfD-Daniel C Boyer for a recreation of the discussion) has frequently made edits to your user page that you have not reverted [5],[6] (as has 65.175.34.15). In that undeletion discussion, however, you (under this username) represented yourself as unconnected with that nominator, and said "no vote". Is this IP a vandal who has been maliciously altering your user page apparently without your notice (and only after the undeletion nomination, never before), or were you attempting a subterfuge? Postdlf 02:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan, a question[edit]

What's all this about? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Published_works&redirect=no

I don't know what you mean by "What's all this about?". At any rate it was started by Athere, and I added to it in the interest of accuracy. But you're going to have to have to give me a more specific question if you expect an answer. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer, if I were to do research on your work in surrealism, today, I would have a very difficult time in putting together various reference sources on your work in surrealism. When did you last exhibit in an International Surrealism exhibit (or event) and where can I reference the catalogue or site, whatever? I need to find the facts that can prove that you really are a surrealist, instead of saying that you are a surrealist.Classicjupiter2 18:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is begging the question; as you are well aware, there are surrealists who are not artists (however loosely we define the term), and surrealism is not an artistic movement, making exhibiting in a surrealist exhibition not a sine qua non of surrealist credentials. Nethertheless, I exhibited in the "Fractured Ampersand Ridiculous" exhibition in Melbourne in 2003.

"Fractured Ampersand Ridiculous"! I looked that up and that was some kind of goth-art "surreal" show on a geocities do-it-yourself website. Please show me something legit.Classicjupiter2 21:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to come up with any other explanation than that you are being deliberately dishonest. A cursory search of what Google brings up will show you that the show did not take place "on... a website". And as for "[p]lease show me something legit", as you have already decided (arbitrarily) that 1965 was the cutoff for authentic surrealist shows (you do not see fit to state any standard for this other than one man's statement that you have hardly explained why it is definitive), and I was not born until 1971, this is just a transparent trap. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you should also look up in your research, inter alia, excerpts of my poem "An Insult to Clocks" being published in WHAT Are You Going to Do About It? No. 2 and my illustration "The Breakfast Club" and my articles "Are You Crazy? Mental Illness & the Belief in Whiteness" and "Seattle 1999: Just the Beginning". --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Dear Mr. Daniel Boyer[edit]

Please see my post and reply to your question at "Reelin hypothesis of the development of Schizophrenia".

Alberto

Stop adding your name to requested articles[edit]

This was obviously you. Or perhaps I should presume that you would never be so sneaky, and that instead anonymous IPs have been vandalizing your user page without you noticing by adding false information to your lengthy profile. In that case, perhaps I should help you out by deleting every bit of text on your user page not added by your user account as vandalism? Postdlf 03:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whenever I made a quite fair observation regarding the debate over the deletion of the Daniel C. Boyer article, or even suggested that it be conducted in a fair manner, you rebuffed me, defending not checking references, imprecise statements verging on recklessness, the constant shifting of your claims, and so forth. You ended by saying you were not going to respond to me. It seems you can't take the hint that I am returning the favour. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, I need to ask you this question out of curiosity. Why do you rely on Wikipedia to promote yourself?

This is a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of question. Nevertheless, I don't rely on Wikipedia to "promote myself," and I certainly don't need to. Any more than you needed to ask. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just needed to ask. Daniel, in any event, I would certainly support any article on the subject of Daniel C.Boyer.

Fine, but I think you have to go through Votes for undeletion or it would be speedily deleted. In any case, you don't need to ask my permission; it doesn't matter whether I mind or not. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I would like to create an article on you. I believe that you should be considered for an article. You are a surrealist and you have been published, so why not? Daniel, would you mind if I created an article on you?Classicjupiter2 23:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Respond or not, but if I catch you again attempting to subvert the standing VfD by sneaking your name into requested articles, I will sanction you with a temporary ban. Consider this your last warning. Postdlf 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dan[edit]

Dan, I think I will pass. It appears from reading the other users talk pages that you are debating with, that there does appear to be a problem with your use of Wikipedia to promote yourself. I was going to consider creating an article about you, but it appears that you already tried to do that yourself. Dan, can I ask you this question in good faith, why are you relying on Wikipedia as a means of promotion? Granted, I think you are a unique surrealist and your art is real bizarre and experimental, but why do you need to rely on a free encyclopedia to list all your work? Daniel, granted that your work, your life's work in surrealism should attain notability on its own merits, and for someone, who is not you, and not affiliated with you or surrealism, to document all your work on its own merits and notability. Really Dan, there are no shortcuts to notability or recognition. I hope that you are not offended.Classicjupiter2 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything in this shows your bad faith. You are saying "I think I will pass" as if I offered you the chance to create an article about me and you are politely declining; it was your idea in the first place and I offered you no encouragement. You claim that you are asking the "question in good faith", but it is transparently of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety. Furthermore, it can certainly arouse suspicion that you and several anonymous IPs insert this phrase "in good faith" after every couple of words, to illuminate to all the latest unsophisticated snare they're setting up. The record will show that I did not attempt to create an article on myself and that in the Votes for deletion and undeletion I repeatedly declined to cast any vote on such an article. As for "listing all my work," I would say a maximum of 5% of my artwork is alluded to anywhere in Wikipedia. I leave it to others to decide on the "notability" of my work. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, then you will not mind if I removed your artwork from the surrealist techniques page and ask that you place those artworks on your user page? Or should those artworks stay on that page? I ask this because of the notablility issue since your article has already been deleted, I guess that you will not mind if I removed your artwork on my next edit? If you do not want me to, please let me know and why. Thanks, Daniel.Classicjupiter2 23:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made clear over and over and over again that the artworks were created in response to a specific request for my illustration of the techniques in question. Why are you asking this again? What bearing does it have on the now-deleted Daniel C. Boyer article? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a request to put them in the article? I still do not see the significance, they must be removed, you are not notable enough to have your art on display in that article, already since your article was removed.Classicjupiter2 20:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that was not a request to put them in the article as they are already in the article. The significance is nothing to do with me; they are merely copyright-free examples of the techniques I made for the article as I was asked to do. The significance is that they are examples of the techniques, not who made them. Again, what is the relevance of the Daniel C. Boyer article? Are you going to answer anything I ask? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they are there just to illustrate the techniques, why not remove your name and the image titles from the captions within the article? That information adds nothing to the article; a reader is not able to better understand what cubomania is by knowing that the image was made by you and titled "My Fantasy Arrives by Post," unlike if it were done by a famous artist that would better help the reader place the technique in a cultural/historical context. You would of course still leave all identifying information on the image description pages, but the article captions shouldn't have anything more than "an example of cubomania," with maybe an additional sentence on how that particular picture was made. That seems to me at the very least to be a fair compromise with those who are concerned that the inclusion of those images is for self-promotional purposes. Postdlf 18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, your comment on my talk page[edit]

Dan, what are you trying to get an answer on and why are you threatening an RfC? Also, why did you do a RfC on Plattopus? What is this all about? Dude, whatever gripes you have with anyone, just let it go, we are all wikipedia friends here. What is this about Philip Lamantia you keep writing on my talk page. Who cares?Classicjupiter2 19:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Infant's Meal[edit]

Daniel, I wanted to ask you about your new artwork, "The Infant's Meal" by Daniel C. Boyer. What is the artwork about?Classicjupiter2 20:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thread format[edit]

If you continue to vandalise other peoples' contributions by inserting your replies directly into their text, I will simply revert the page without reproducing the comments. Specifically I am talking about my talk page, but I don't think you should be doing it anywhere. Jerzy has already mentioned that this is not a good thing to be doing. plattopus^talk 17:05, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Even a moron could tell who wrote what from where the indentations are, and if it's not obvious, the history page will show it. Calling it "vandalism" is a real stretch, to say the least. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how you appear to be the only one on Wikipedia who does it, and no one is happy with it even if some tolerate it, why don't you refrain for the sake of good manners? "Vandalism" is kind of in the eye of whose comments are being chopped up and rearranged from how they were originally written, isn't it? By inserting your comments into the middle of other peoples', you're destroying their rhetorical force by making sure that anyone who reads those comments has to do so through the interruption of your responses. That's a bit different than how thread discussions are supposed to work. Please don't do it. You deserve being reverted when you do. Postdlf 18:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never rearragned someone else's comments. How am I to reach any other conclusion other than that you are lying? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you latch on to a tiny aspect of a comment that may be slightly incorrect, and completely ignore the gist of his thoughts? The fact is that, call it what you want, you inserted your replies directly into the body of text to which you were replying. It completely ruins any semblence of readability for the contributor of the original comments, in favour of making people read YOUR responses before anything else. You have now been told by 4 people to refrain from doing so, and I have noticed that since then you haven't done it... but it would be great if it could continue that way.

plattopus^talk 15:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have always thought it strange that a self-purported surrealist would be so damn literal, but I think it's just a means of evasion rather than genuine confusion over what someone meant. Maybe he really is that confused, I don't know. But your observation is right on. Postdlf 18:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I "so damn literal"? I have always thought it strange that a self-purported law student would be unable to understand even the simplest things, and would stand on the principle of sloppy research, but I think it's just a case of slanting everything possible to cut against someone he doesn't like. Maybe he really is that confused, [sic] I don't know. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I would dislike another Wikipedian? We've never met each other, and I have no experience or knowledge of you outside of this website. Postdlf 20:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're literal in many places. You take phrases and figures of speech literally and don't attempt to interpret the thoughts behind a particular word, just the word itself. For example, above you said that you never "rearranged" anyone else's comments, which is undoubtedly true, but the rest of Postdif's comments, all of which are valid, were completely ignored so that you could pull him up on the insignificant error.

plattopus^talk 19:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

But why should I dispute something he says that's just his opinion, if I don't wish to? Why shouldn't I dispute his statement that I "rearranged" others' comments if he said I did and I didn't? I'm under no obligation to dispute the rest of what he says just because I disagree with one tiny part of what he says. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with a fair bit of effort even a "moron" could eventually piece together what someone was intending to say but the point is that they shouldn't have to. They should read one comment in its entirety, followed by its responses, followed by their responses... not one sentence of a comment, an individual response to that sentence, another one and a half sentences, another response, the remainder of the broken sentence, etc etc. It's incredibly disjointed, ugly, hard to follow, and whether you like it or not, its viewed as vandalism by several people. It also doesn't help when you inconsistantly indent certain sections, thereby ruining other peoples' actual threads.

plattopus^talk 19:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dan, you are always welcome to make a comment on my talk page, its your insertions into the thread that really throws off the continuity of the original statements. I do forgive the inexorable insertions, I know how strong you feel about your work, there is nothing wrong with having strong convinctions about yourself or your work, but it would help you immensely if you allow your creations (and work) to stand out on their own merits. I see that Infrogmation re-inserted your artworks and I also see that Postdlf has removed the caption information, which I can accept and live with. Dan, once you establish notability on your work, I will fully support any article on you or your mention in any article. Remember Dan, you do have the luxury of a user page to exhibit as many of your artworks your heart desires and that is exposure in and of itself, so why bite off more than you can chew? I do wish you success.Classicjupiter2 23:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, user pages shouldn't be used like that. See Wikipedia:User page. "Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian." I personally think that Boyer's current user page goes far beyond that as it is, let alone if he were to turn it into an art gallery. Postdlf 23:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you "how how strong [sic] I feel about my work"? Have I ever said anything of the kind, or are you putting thoughts in my head? How am I not allowing my "creations (and work) to stand out on [its] own merits"? I am going to restore the caption information and revert Postdlf's vandalism. I don't think an encyclopedia would or should fail to give sources, and particularly in light of the fact that Richard Genovese's works are credited on the same page, I'm being singled out for unfair treatment. I would be more than willing (not that my willingness is in any way relevant, as this is an open source encyclopedia in the writing of which all are equal) to have my illustrations replaced by others if others are willing to create or find copyright-free examples. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed this explanation here of your reversion, and so I retract the description I gave in my last edit summary on surrealist techniques that your edit was made without comment. I obviously have to disagree with the "vandalism" characterization, as I have put forth a genuine reason for removing the information—I believe it to be just as irrelevant as it would be to include a title and artist credit in the edit caption for the autofellatio illustration. Genovese, I understand, passed a VfD and has his own article, which presumes that people may be familiar with him or his work—giving his name and titles provides a point of reference that giving information about yours in the article does not. At the very least, why is it not a fair compromise with those who are concerned about the inclusion of your images that your images remain, and the full titles, whatever you want to call them, and your name remain on the image description pages, but the article captions are left generic? Postdlf 20:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe no other encyclopaedia would proceed this way, any more than one would write a scholarly paper without footnotes. In the case of artworks (loosely described), would the title and maker truly be supressed? I strongly dispute that the inclusion of the captions is a claim for notability on my part (particulary since I have repeatedly, repeatedly, stated that I would not object [not that if I did object it would be relevant] to the replacement of the images with those created by another or others); they are nothing more than a credit, and whatever notability or non-notability is relevant is that of the particular techniques, of which these are nothing more than illustrations. And saying "the full titles, whatever you want to call them" is a virtual admission of bad faith or bias on your part; why is there any question that these are the titles? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, Thank you! I was not aware of that rule here on Wikipedia. That sheds a whole new light on things. I was under the impression that a Wikipedia user could utilize their own user page in the manner they choose, as in Boyer's case, a resume, porfolio, and links to art galleries online.

Daniel, were you aware of this rule? You have been a registered member here on Wikipedia for some time now. You also have an extensive listing of your art, works, creations, and accomplishments, here on your Wikipedia user page. Daniel, do you use Wikipedia as a means for self-promotion? I need to ask you this because of the matter of your input into articles relating to you and your friends for quite some time now. Upon viewing your user page, it does appear to be a rather large resume and it also provides many, many links to art galleries online, not relating to Wikipedia. Please provide a response to this matter, Daniel, it does raise some serious concern. Your user page does not follow the Wikipedia user page guidelines and its obvious that you are treating this free encyclopedia as a hosting service for your own needs. There really is no denying that fact.Classicjupiter2 00:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated several times that only links that are somehow relevant to a Wikipedia article (there may be a very few exceptions) are listed (this includes articles on a number of media). As I have already explained this to you several times I am not interested in your insincere questions. ("I need to ask you this because of the matter of your input into articles relating to you and your friends for quite some time now"; I have noticed that "for quite some time now" you have defined as among "my friends" people I have never met and have had no contact with.) --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, 90% of those media you list are almost VfD-worthy, because there is so little content in the articles, and they are such obscure instruments, that they barely warrant an article. But that's not the point. The point is that your user page is to be used solely for information on "you as a Wikipedian", not "you as an artist who happens to post on Wikipedia". Even if some of those pieces are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, I don't think you have used the Wikipedia service in the spirit in which it's intended to be used.

plattopus^talk 15:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point about the media, with the caveat that they might and probably do have greater relevance not in an "artistic" context, but in the context, say, of an office. But at any rate it is one that should be made, if it is, by placing the offending articles on VfD. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Daniel C.Boyer's entire user page and I counted (I could be off by one or two) 140 links to Daniel C.Boyer's art to websites that showcase his art all over the Internet! Oh God! Talk about aggressive promotion! I think I am going to start calling Wikipedia, Boyerpedia! Please forgive me Daniel, but you have to admit your user page is a hosting service! You should have no problem with the exposure that you get just on this one user page! My question to anyone who notices this, is this appropriate use of one's user page and can we all do what Daniel has been doing on his user page?Classicjupiter2 01:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please do not revert the captions again, please[edit]

Dan, I see that user:Postdlf had to again fix the article by changing the revert that you made to his changes. Dan, I am asking you as nice as I can and in good faith, please, please, please, let user:Postdlf's version stay and let the art illustrations stay as they are without your credit information under the caption. So far, two different people, myself and user:postdlf had to change back your revert and you insist on putting your name and credits back on there. The article is fine as it is, your art illustrations are already on there, what more do you want? Also, I have not spoken with user:Postdlf on the reverts issue, I spoke with user:Plattopus, and I am not speaking for anyone here but myself, when I say this, but please, please, please, let it go for the sake of compromise and resolution for the sake of Wikipedia. Nobody here is picking on you or singling you out. The issue is your actions, not you. You made the decision to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes and that cannot be allowed, why argue that?Classicjupiter2 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

It isn't active yet because it hasn't been listed. Right now, we want to make sure it's as accurate and fully documented as possible before it is made public. You expect no less, right? Until then, it's not open for comment. Once it's public, of course, you'll have every opportunity to respond. I can understand your eagerness, however. Postdlf 00:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. I apologise for misunderstanding, though it's kind of confusing as it is already a publicly-accessible part of Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer for you to respond. Postdlf 07:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some rewriting, mostly adding documentation, to the RFC.[7] You are of course free to rewrite your already-posted response accordingly so that it addresses the most current version rather than a previous one. Postdlf 07:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering [8],[9],[10],[11],[12], and[13], for example, you might want to reconsider your statement in your RFC response that "I have simply contributed articles with which my connexion was marginal (a technique I'd used once, with no mention of me in the article) or nonexistent by any reasonable stretch (individuals or a group I'd never met or had any contact with)." (emphasis added) Postdlf 19:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude[edit]

What are you doing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Postdlf Daniel, this has to be a surrealist joke, please tell me that it is? This guy is a law student for God's sake! Oh Man!Classicjupiter2 00:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are law students automatically exempt from following the rules in Wikipedia? It's not a joke. Postdlf abused RfC by combining multiple issues on RfC when he had represented the issue was my self-promotion, then brought up Allison Boyer, who is clearly not myself. I'm not saying that's not a legitimate issue; I'm just saying that it's a different issue than self-promotion. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But talk page vandalism is a seperate issue as well, but so far we all agree that it's not a misuse of RfC because it's part of our overall dispute. They are all part of the same dispute! The RfC doesn't say that you can't bring up numerous multiple issues, but rather that users certifying the RfC must agree on all the issues raised, and there can't be two people who have completely different issues with the subject of the RfC cerifying it solely to get to the two-person threshold. You are attempting to find small loopholes to get yourself out of the mess you have created. Just let the community view our submissions and make their comments.

plattopus^talk 15:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I would consider an issue regarding your sister to be consistent with "self-promotion" just as talking about your house, car, or favorite dog would be. (Clear me up if I don't understand the full issue.) - Tεx τ urε 15:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Texture, now that I think about it, maybe, just maybe we are not really looking at this the way Dan is, through his eyes. After reading your helpful advice on my talk page regarding user Bleedy, and your stance on that issue, I think that maybe we all have been to hard on Dan. After I read your last post on my talk page, I think I understand the whole scope of this. We need to look through Dan's eyes. Maybe Dan is right? Maybe Dan is showing us something that we are overlooking? Texture, please try to get back to me soon. I am considering supporting Dan in his case. Maybe the RfC against him was not the way to go. Any advice, Texture?Classicjupiter2 01:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm most curious about is why you chose to ignore this very clear requirement: "Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute." (emphasis added) For the third time, actually; both of your listings against Plattopus were also on the basis of a complaint you alone had with him. The two people requirement is rather explicit, particularly since the RFC listing gets deleted if no second person certifies within 48 hours. Postdlf 15:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "Candidates for deletion," which specifically says that it has yet to meet the two-person requirement. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, really, have you noticed that NOBODY endorsed your RfC against Postdlf? You deliberately ignored the two people requirement. This is not the first time. Why did you do this, really? Are you mad?Classicjupiter2 19:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide notable sources for this article request you made?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts#Surrealism

Dan, you did request an article on the topic and the reference source is your friend's website?Classicjupiter2 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I am going to reconsider the RfC that was brought against you. I might have been too harsh on you during the review and upon re-reading your responses, you really have brought up some good issues (I think I may have been wrong about your sister Allison), regarding the encyclopedia. Dan, I am still thinking this over and I might remove my name from the RfC endorsement that was brought against you, until I hear back from you.Classicjupiter2 04:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Surrealism Article[edit]

Dan, have you seen the recent changes made to the Surrealism article?Classicjupiter2 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flag of India[edit]

Hi! I've tried to describe the Flag of India in heraldic terms. I'm not sure if I'm right but is party per fess saffron, argent and vert, wheel in the middle the correct description? Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 10:17 (UTC)

No. There is no tincture "saffron" in heraldry; it would at least come closest (it is indistinguishable to me) to "tenné". Am I missing something about the tincture; it is technically something other than tenné? And you cannot have a "party per" contain three divisions of the field; it must be either two or four (the single example of "party per saltie"). To do this you'd need to say "tierced in," but in some heraldic jurisdictions, such as England, this is viewed as not as correct as what follows (keep in mind that in this context the fess is theoretically one-third the width of the field, so that when it is laid over the one-half and one-half it creates thirds. At any rate, this is my best stab at it: Party per fess Tenné and Vert on a fess Argent a wheel Azure. (You don't need to say the wheel is in the middle as the position it's in on the flag is the default.) That said, there's something unusual about the wheel; my understanding is it's a stylised representation of a spinning wheel, not the carriage or wagon wheel that's the default when one says "wheel" in heraldry, but I'm not sure precisely how to deal with this. I hope this has been helpful. --Daniel C. Boyer 1 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

I just noticed your reply, so belated thanks. User grutness has corrected the heraldic description. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»=

Hi! Thanks for correcting the blazon of the Indian flag. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 05:10 (UTC)

content vote[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if, as someone who has previously contributed to related discussions, you might be interested in taking a look at this vote, about some disputed content in the micronation article. --Centauri 02:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative material in articles[edit]

If you wish to provide illustrative material in articles such as Surrealist techniques, you may do so. The convention at Wikipedia is that illustrative material that is not notable in its own right is not attributed in the article. For this reason I have removed your "outagraph." Attribution is placed on the image description page instead, as was done with the Cubomania example you created that appears in the same article. If you wish to re-add your "outagraph" without attribution I would encourage you to do so.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether this is the convention in Wikipedia but am for now doing as you suggested. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, about Surrealism in the United States[edit]

Daniel, as you well know upon reflecting on yourself and your own work, Surrealism is an active movement. You know that fact and so do I. Daniel, what I want to know, is after ALL this Time, do you feel so strongly about your friends in the surrealist groups in Portland, Houston, Minnesota, Wisconsin, London, Leeds, Honolulu, Chicago, etc., that they deserve to be mentioned in this Encyclopedia? Daniel, I have to admit, after ALL this Time, there is no denying this fact, you really are a surrealist and I know that your friends are too. However, do you believe that the public knows that your movement is real? I am still waiting on some kind of collective gathering of all your surrealist friends and comrades in some kind of International Surrealist Event, but it will never happen. It will just never happen. When you rely so much on an Encyclopedia to verify the existence of your friends as surrealists, yet there is practically nothing to show their work in surrealism, you only defeat your own agenda. I am only trying to work with you on this matter. You prove to me that all these people are really surrealist, so the public can know and verify there works. Like Group photos, pamphlets, manifestos, artworks, experiments, shows, etc. and I will support your edits. Also, Daniel, let me ask you this, do you know who I am?Classicjupiter2 01:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]