User talk:Classicjupiter2/Archive 1

Proposed RfC content

CJ2, I've written up a preliminary walkthrough of the events of the past couple of weeks, but I am not going to add it to the RfC page until we have all the facts straightened out and every piece of evidence uncovered. If you could help me out by adding anything you can to the draft version it would help me out a lot. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 17:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, I just signed the section to certify, and I am now gathering evidence to list on that page.Classicjupiter2 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thread Formatting

CJ2, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and attempted to re-create the original thread of discussion in this page. I'm really annoyed that DCB inserted his comments into mine directly, so I took them out... but I also indented your comments since they were a response to the text that I had just moved. I've left anything below that discussion in tact, but if you disagree with my changes feel free to revert. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 19:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Very cool! Thank you, Plattopus. The discussion thread looks a lot better now that its more organized and coherent.Classicjupiter2 21:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer

I would like to chime in on your discussion with Daniel C. Boyer to tell you that ignoring him seems to do the trick. I think it's inappropriate for him to continually use RfC as his own personal ego-barrier, but he's not actually doing anything against the rules so the best thing to do is let him know that you will not participate in any of his childish arguments. It worked on my talk page. Also there seems to be quite a number of people who have identified his need to self-promote on Wikipedia, so hopefully something can be done about that too. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

What does "ego-barrier" mean? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC) (moved out of text by plattopus)

Researchers stumbling upon the page is a very good point... something definitely needs to be done. It's my strong opinion that if Boyer's art is notable enough, someone else will write an article about him without even knowing that he's a registered member here. When that happens (and without suspicion of any funny business involving DCB himself) then I think we can lay the issue to rest. But to be honest, I can't see that happening.

I hadn't actually read the surrealist techniques article before, but it really is a disgrace that there are so many mentions of DCB when his notability is questionable and it's almost certain that he had a hand in putting his name there. Anyway, I'm very much behind any effort to fix the situation, so if anyone needs my help just give me a buzz. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 04:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The following was originally posted directly in the comments above, thereby hindering the intent of the comments. They have been reproduced in their original form below. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 19:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Researchers, if they are really serious and capable, will know to take information they found in an open source encyclopaedia for what it's worth, and they certainly will be able to to access any discussions or complaints, what have you, about me in Wikipedia. Researchers who rely overly on one little part of Wikipedia and jump to conclusions which a thorough reading would lead anyone to conclude are unwarranted, researchers who do not consult a range of other on- and offline sources as well, in my opinion deserve what they get. That said, I don't think anyone could conclude from the surrealist techniques article that these illustrations of the techniques are anything more than illustrations of the techniques, and I would be flabbergasted if they got the impression that I was a major figure in their development.

It's already happened, over a hundred times. So to say that you "can't see that happening" is a bit surprising. For instance, there was a review on my solo exhibition in Soho in Gallery and Studio magazine.

If you'll read my talk page, this was in response to a request made by someone else for copyright-free illustrations of the techniques. I then created them. They don't have anything to do with my notability or non-notability, and if Classicjupiter2 would both to read one single thing I'd written, he'd know this. I'm not arguing against the replacement of these works with copyright-free works made by others; I'd be all for it, but I don't know of any available.

--Daniel C. Boyer 15:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Dan! I just read what you wrote above,

"That said, I don't think anyone could conclude from the surrealist techniques article that these illustrations of the techniques are anything more than illustrations of the techniques, and I would be flabbergasted if they got the impression that I was a major figure in their development. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)".

Ok, Dan, so you will not have any problem with the removal of this information from that article. You just admitted that you, "would be flabbergasted if they got the impression that I was a major figure in their development". That article needs a major facelift. Dan, I will fully support your rights to exhibit and write anything about yourself and your, "techniques" on your user page. It kills me that you jump into this conversion that I am having with Plattopus, who is wise to you as I am. You are even promoting yourself here on my own talk page. This, I will keep on here as evidence.Classicjupiter2 15:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I do and would object to the removal of any appropriate citing of sources from the Wikipedia, and particularly if anyone, even me, if being singled out. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

(Daniel, please don't vandalise my contributions by chopping it up into chunks and replying directly to each sentence/point. I posted it with the intention that it be read as a whole, not interspersed with your drivel.)

(This is also in response to your comments on my talk page, which are generally the same as what you wrote above.)

That said... I will now attempt to reply to your comments. Firstly, an ego barrier is the force-field you have set up around yourself in order to protect your ego. You don't like the fact that I said nasty things about you, so you trundled off to RfC and (unsuccesfully) tried to get someone to back you up. I believe such frivolous use of RfC possibly contravenes WP:POINT.

Secondly, researchers should in a perfect world be able to use Wikipedia as their sole work of reference. We're striving to be a compendium of knowledge that is not clouded by POV, bias, etc etc. The fact that this is a free and open-source encyclopedia should not be used as an excuse to give up on any hope of becoming respectable. And regardless of how highly respected this encyclopedia is or is not, I believe it's profoundly inappropriate of you (or people accused of being your sockpuppets) to be inserting material into articles relating to yourself. Like I said before, if you were anywhere near notable, someone would have already written an article about you (and by that I mean Wikipedia article, not an article in general... anyone can get an article in a magazine published about them). File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 17:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second that my use of RfC was frivolous. You stood on the principle of being wrong. How is making a request for comment about this "frivolous"? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Well for a start I was listed there without any discussion being held on my user page, and you lacked the required two complainants to deal with RfC's over individual users. It was out of process and to prove a point. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 16:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

It was not out of process, it was not to prove a point, and since it was under the "candidates" section, obviously it had not met the two complainants section as it was obviously not claimed to. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly was out of process, since the process dictates that it should have been discussed on my talk page first. That is a text-book case of being out of process. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

You greatly misunderstand me; I'm not saying that Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to rid itself of POV and bias. I believe it should. I believe that Wikipedia shouldn't abandon any attempt to become respectable. I'm just saying that any serious researcher if writing a paper or a book should consult multiple sources; it's a basic principle of research. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "Researchers, if they are really serious and capable, will know to take information they found in an open source encyclopaedia for what it's worth, and they certainly will be able to to access any discussions or complaints, what have you, about me in Wikipedia. Researchers who rely overly on one little part of Wikipedia and jump to conclusions which a thorough reading would lead anyone to conclude are unwarranted, researchers who do not consult a range of other on- and offline sources as well, in my opinion deserve what they get." Of course researchers should consult multiple references, but they shouldn't have to dig around the lower reaches of the Wikipedia website in order to understand why particular content was included in the Wikipedia text. They should be able to trust that what is presented in an article is unbiased, correct, and placed there because there is a reason for it to be there. When I see an image placed next to an explanation of a technique, I assume that it is a particularly notable example of that technique by a notable artist. I would, for example, expect to see a photo of the Sistine Chapel in the Fresco section of an art article. I expect this because it's an (admittedly unwritten) convention that is used in a majority of reference works. Your example of some ink falling down a piece of paper does illustrate the technique, but if it is only meant as a demonstration, why must it be cited by name as an artwork? File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 16:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that what you're saying is true. While perhaps ideally "they shouldn't have to dig around the lower reaches of the Wikipedia website in order to understand why particular content was included" it could just as well be argued that researchers should, ideally, be thorough in their researches. I understand what you're saying about an image being placed next to an explanation of a technique, even if I would (somewhat) question whether you would be jumping to conclusions. However, that said, it's not exactly easy to get images licenced for Wikipedia illustrating cubomania and "movement of liquid down a vertical surface," much less "notable" examples by a "notable artist". The only examples of cubomania I was able to find I believed were covered by copyright, and I wasn't able to find any example of "movement of liquid down a vertical surface," as I had hoped to find examples by others before responding to a request (as I have explained over and over and over again) to provide examples myself. As for why it must be cited by name as an artwork, wouldn't you expect it to say, in the encyclopaedia under the example of the fresco, "The Sistine Chapel"? Or should it just say, this is an example of a fresco? I think the source should be cited regardless of the notability of the source; this is just good research practice. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference is that crediting Da Vinci gives the reader a historical point of reference against which to view the example. But forgetting that topic (we're really getting off the beaten track here), CJ2 makes a great point when he says that if you truly didn't care whether or not you were included in any articles, then you wouldn't have spent the past week arguing with myself, CJ2, Jerzy and Postdlf. The best thing you could do to stop people from thinking you're self-important and self-obsessed would be to leave all of this up to the general public (i.e. me, someone who has nothing more than a passing interest in surrealism). The fact that you continue to engage in discussions with us over you and your use of Wikipedia to promote yourself just proves that you are fighting to keep yourself in as many articles as possible. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 16:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone is going to be able to see through your bizarre argument, which is, generally, that "people are going to think you're self-important and self-obsessed" because, among other things, you've said that it's o.k. with you if your pictures, and mention of you, is/are removed from articles. Do you even read what you write? Is this the action of someone "fighting to keep [himself] in as many articles as possible"? How do you fight to keep yourself in articles by saying it's fine with you if you're removed from them? Are you totally illiterate? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the fifth or sixth time you have asked if someone read the comments to which they were replying, do you honestly believe that I am completely unaware of what I'm saying? Anyway, my argument does not take into account the fact that you said that you don't mind if your pictures are replaced because, to be honest, that's about 1% of the issue. Yes it's good of you to say that you accept any replacements, but that doesn't change the fact that your user page is nothing but an ego-stroking exercise, and that you have repeatedly caused trouble with trying to weasel your way into the Wikipedia in other ways (for example, requesting an article on yourself). I think that compared to these points, offering to remove an image from one article is quite insignificant.

And by the way, I'd be careful where you take the "Are you totally illiterate?" comments... don't forget, you took me to RfC over use of the word auto-felatio, and insulting my intelligence is a personal attack (a legitimate reason to get you sanctioned).

File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you come up with an interpretation with is 180 degrees at odds with the available evidence, someone is going to conclude that you're either unaware of what you're saying, or that you're totally illiterate. Fact is, the surrealist techniques page has been the issue, and now you're saying it's not. So drop it. Fact is, you're saying that I've been fighting to be included in Wikipedia articles when I'm doing nothing of the kind, and indeed the only positive argument I've made along these lines is indicating that I don't have any objection (and indeed, it could certainly been done over my objection, as I don't have any special standing in this area) to the replacement of my illustrations with others. I would challenge you to provide one single example in which I've advocated my inclusion in an article. You can't. Your analysis of my user page is just an opinion, not a fact, and you admitted this yourself. Your mischaracterisation of what I've done has been near-total. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here, and when someone comes up with an argument relevant to one issue, you immediately change the subject to the other. So I will now deal with both issues at once, and see how you respond.

First, the surrealist techniques article. It's my personal belief that if, as you claim, the images posted are only there as a demonstration of a technique, and not as a notable real-life example of such a technique, then it is irrelevant who produced the example image. I also, however, see this as a far smaller issue than the next one, and that is...

You fighting for an article on yourself. The only evidence I wish to cite in this issue is the fact that, as has been documented before, you posted to requested articles and added your name to the list. This is all that needs to be said about the matter, despite there being further examples (such as this entire thread of discussion over previous weeks where you are constantly fighting for your right to appear in articles; and your appearance on VfU). The fact that you requested an article on yourself is so damning that it should stand on its own.

File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a fact, it has not been documented, and it is not true. I never requested an article on myself. But even had I, you should mention the Wikipedia policy of which it's in contravention.

Had I been fighting for an article on myself, when the Daniel C. Boyer article came up on VfD I would have advocated for its retention, and it is clear from the archived debate on that, whatever Postdlf's lies are, that I did not. Moreover, you say that I have attempted to insert information on myself in surrealism-related articles. Where? When? You do not wish to document it because it didn't occur. As for the appearance of the Daniel C. Boyer article on VfU, what in particular are you claiming about this? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you have 140 links on your user page!!!!!! There is probably 20 out of 140 links that are Wikipedia related! You have been using this encyclopedia service to promote yourself, your user page is a resume for God's sake. Dan, you can jive me and Plattopus and anyone else who is reading my page only so much, but there is a limit to what I can stand. Plattopus, who has the patience of a saint, has been more than reasonable with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free hosting service, nor is it a platform for you to weasel your art and name into articles. Postdlf already gave you a final warning! Dude, the more you jive us here on my talk page with you going on and on over the most trivial aspects of this dialogue, the more lame it becomes! I ask myself, where does Daniel C. Boyer find the time to be a surrealist, create surrealist art and write surrealist essays, and participate in surrealist activity? Well, what we have is a lot of self-promotion on an encyclopedia that is being used as a shortcut to notability. Dude, it just doesn't work that way!!! When are you going to realize that you don't need to even be here?Classicjupiter2 19:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

And there is a limit to what I can stand. You have mischaracterised what I've said at every turn (I've all but argued for the removal of my illustrations from the surrealist techniques page, for example), actively lied about it, and turned a blind eye to my proofs that what you're saying is not true. At least you have a sense of humour, in claiming that "Plattopus... has the patience of a saint," but at any rate it is difficult to have patience with you, whose modus operandi is insincere questions, putting words in others' mouths, and setting the most obvious kinds of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" traps. You are clearly (as your patently biased campaigns for VfD in which you have also mischaracterised at every turn have repeatedly shown) motivated by an anti-surrealist bias. As for my "being here," it is none of your business whether I am here or not. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan, please read the following carefully. Plattopus is only trying to help this encyclopedia service, as I suggest that we all are by being here on Wikipedia. The issue of contention here is not you, or liking or disliking you. It is your blantant attempts at circumventing notability here on this encyclopedia service. There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a means to exhibit your art and all your accomplishments on your own user page, that is cool. I am not speaking for Plattopus on this point, but I think Plattopus would agree that your attempts, efforts, and actions regarding input into an article must be addressed. I am referring to your actions after the VfD that already took place on the Daniel C. Boyer article, and yes, Dan, that article and you, does have everything to do with the surrealist technique article and any of the articles that you are involved with here on Wikipedia. If you were to distance yourself from trying so hard to use this service as a means of self-promotion, and allow your artwork, experiments, writings, films, etc.,etc., to stand the test of time on their own merits, and becoming rightfully acknowledged and documented by notable sources, then you would certainly deserve mention in any article that relates to the specific topic. For example, Man Ray is not mentioned in the surrealist techniques article, but you and your friend Richard Genovese is and that is not right. Yes, Dan, the other infromation about Trost, etc., does belong in there, but most of the techniques that are categorized on that article are either created by you or Genovese, or expanded upon by other notable surrealists from the past. Dan, please do not tread on our attempts at preserving quality research. Plattopus, (like you and I), is only trying to present the best research material here on this encyclopedia service. You, however, are doing everything to promote yourself, using Wikipedia as a shortcut to fame and notability. Dan, if this were not the case, you would not even be arguing this with Plattopus and myself.

I need to ask Plattopus to take into account this very obvious fact: Notice how Daniel is vigilant on arguing this matter and if he was not using Wikipedia as a means for self-promotion, then what is he doing here on my talk page and yours? It is obvious. You know it as well as I and Dan's RfC post out of spite is clearly inappropriate. If Dan was to redeem himself and step back with clear focus, he would not even argue any of this matter. Plattopus, in the meantime, the surrealist techniques article does need to be fixed without any mention of DCB or his friend. There is some accurate and verifiable information on there, but Boyer and his friend Genovese, cannot stay on there to exhibit their art, it is not fair to any of us. This is why I wanted to talk to you first about this issue before I do any edits and revisions on that article.Classicjupiter2 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, quality research would require that cites be provided for the illustrations. Replace them if you want, but my argument is that either my illustrations, or the illustrations that replace them, should be credited. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan, by the way, placing someone on the Request for Comments like you did to Plattopus, just because he did not apologize to you (which he certainly does not have to do under any circumstances) is rather lame.Classicjupiter2 20:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said Classicjupiter2, and would fully support anyone's effort to NPOV-erise the surrealist techniques article. I, however, have no interest in that subject so would not be able to do it myself. I only got involved in this discussion when I said Daniel's article was non-notable vanity in VfU, I haven't got much familiarity with surrealism. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 15:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, why I placed him on RfC is that he falsely stated that all of my artworks were linked to on my User page when only a minescule percentage of them were, and other things along these lines, and then refused to retract his non-factual statement or even discuss it. It has nothing to do with an apology, it has to do with Plattopus standing on his right to make knowingly false statements. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, I made some changes to the article and Infrogmation stopped on by and so did Postdlf and the article is cool for now. Boyer's art images are back on there, but without the caption information, which is cool. The art images will only show the illustration of the methods presented in that article without the caption information. I could have saved us a whole bunch of trouble and poured an ink bottle down a blank piece of paper and uploaded it on there. In any event, (in regards to that article), it appears that anyone can upload an image to that article to illustrate the methods presented. What's next, surrealist trashograms? Oh brother. Anyway, the article is cool for now and I can live with Boyer's illustrations on there, he is already all over Wikipedia, so that is old news.Classicjupiter2 01:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you'd like to make a "movement of liquid down a vertical surface" work as an illustration to replace mine, and are willing for it to be appropriately licenced, my advice would be to go for it. As for being "saved trouble" you are the one wanting to have the trouble in the first place. If your POV about "movement of liquid down a vertical surface" is that is silly, by all means edit the surrealist techniques article to reflect that this is one POV about the method. If you want to invent a method called "surrealist trashograms", fine; I'm more than willing to hear about what the method entails. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's extremely unfair of you to accuse CJ2 of anti-surrealism (which is almost laughable in itself), since he has made every effort to explain that he has no issue with you or your work, but your contributions to Wikipedia and your self-promotion. The fact that he is involved in the surrealism articles should tell you that he is absolutely not anti-surrealism. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly unfair of me, and by no means "laughable." You may or may not be aware that his main "contribution" to the surrealism articles is listing as many as he can (some of which there may have been justification for, but others obviously [in my opinion] not) on VfD. Check his contributions. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You've still made no effort to explain why he has on more than one occasion made sure to explain that he is particularly not anti-surrealist. Again, you pick on one aspect of a comment and forget the rest. OK, so let's assume he hasn't made any valuable contribution to surrealism-related articles. The fact still remain that he has said specifically that he is not anti-you or anti-surrealism. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 20:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I never said that he hasn't made any valuable contribution to surrealism-related articles (which he really hasn't, he's only vandalised them), but why I say he's anti-surrealist is that he falsely claims that surrealism has ended in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and that his main "contribution" has being trying to get as many surrealism-related articles as possible deleted even when they were very significant and there was no colorable basis for their deletion. As for claiming he's not anti-surrealist, I don't know why he would, in the face of his overt acts, but I think it's an attempt to maintain an air of objectivity. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan, cut the crap. The surrealism articles that were deleted after being voted in favor to delete by the Wikipedia community. You were involved in more than half the articles, either created by you or with your involvement in the activities and websites of the surrealist articles in question. You, Dan, of all people, should realize that fact. Its also fair to say that you are either linked to the websites in question and you are also friends with many of the surrealists, many of whom you collaborate with and that is a fact. Dan, its so obvious, you are promoting not only yourself, but your friends and comrades and this is not the place to do so. Even the book that you are a contributor, had an article on here, "Surrealist Subversions" and also the collective statements as well.

Plattopus, you are not the only one that is wise to Boyer. Please go drop a note to Wikipedia user:Wyss, he, like you, Postdlf, Jerzy, me, and probably a few others here, are wise to Dan. In the meantime, Dan, please do us all a favor. Go grab a blank piece of paper, pour a cup of coffee on it, so that it stains the paper, call this an automatic artwork, something like, "Necessary Enema in the Land of Make Believe" and upload it on to a free website service, call it a surrealist artwork, and go promote it on another free encyclopedia service, where they will probably reach the same conclusions as we have. If that does not work, see an analyst or something. There is nothing wrong with talking to a psychiatrist. Your obsession with arguing with me and Plattopus over such trivial nonsense does worry me.Classicjupiter2 23:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

After reading Wyss's talk page (combimed with our talk pages), I think we have enough support to ask that Daniel be blocked from editing any surrealism-related articles from now on. As he said earlier, he does have something to offer non-surrealism subjects like heraldry, but I think the only way the surrealism topics will regain any semblence of credibility is to have anyone with questionable motives barred from editing them. I will take this matter to RfC upon consultation with you, Postdlf, Wyss and Jerzy, and see where it goes after that... but I believe we have more than enough evidence and support to make this whole thing go away. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 07:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, Plattopus. We all have been way too patient with Boyer and we also have been putting up with way too much trivial nonsense from him as well. His RFC against you, along with his inability to reach any kind of agreement, or consensus with us, and others, has proven that he is beyond reason. He goes on and on endlessly arguing such utter trivial nonsense that has nothing to do with the main issues. Plus the fact that he was busted by you, postdlf and others trying to re-insert (or plainly speaking weasel) his way into articles after his own article was VfD. On top of that, he has the gall to complain to us that we are not being fair and objective. Plattopus, I fully support a review on this matter and I recommend that if Dan does not cool it, (which I know he will not) then I suggest he be blocked from editing articles that he is involved in, mainly contemporary surrealism articles. Also, I recommend that Boyer make changes on his user page according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. No more Boyer promotion for him and his friends on here, he went way overboard and his actions are out of line. Also, his constant arguing over such trivial matters should be considered for review as well. We have done everything to work with this man.Classicjupiter2 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do you bother to argue back if you consider the issues "trivial"? Or is this just a way of saving yourself the trouble of admitting of you don't have a leg to stand on? Saying that I am "beyond reason" is tantamount to the pot calling the kettle black. If the "trivial nonsense" I am talking about is not the "main issues" why do you go on and on about it and not bother to mention the "main issues"? I was by no means "busted". It is not "gall" to complain that you are not being fair and objective as, inter alia Plattopus has admitted that if the behaviour he complained of from me had come from Postdlf he wouldn't have complained about it, and Postdlf et al. have said, in essence and actually, that the source of my illustrations shouldn't be cited on the page but Genovese's should. Is this fair? Is this objective? Are you going to answer these questions or just duck them as you have so many others? I am gratified that you finally admit that surrealism continues; perhaps I should recommend that you make changes to your "contributions" in line with this admission. As for me and "my friends", what about the fact that you've repeatedly called people I don't know and have never had any contact with my "friends"? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You have not gathered any evidence whatsoever and you have not presented any. One of the people with whom you've consulted, Postdlf, you've in effect admitted to having a bias against in that if he did the same things as I did, you'd say they were o.k., and this disqualifies you in and of itself. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan, you are way too sensitive. First let me tell you that your art is staying on the article page, without the caption information, so you still have your illustration on there. Also, it is obvious that you are letting all of this get to you, which it shouldn't. Remember, you would not let any of this bother you, unless you had some kind of personal stake in attempting to promote yourself. As for the "surrealist trashograms", I don't want to get into that right now, other surrealists might steal my idea!Classicjupiter2 16:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

The page is now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer. Postdlf 07:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Axe-grinding deletionist agenda

Your listing on VfD of Ron Sakolsky has been characterised by another user as "vexatious and trivial". This is part of a pattern of your attempt to delete any remotely surrealist-connected article (post 1965, perhaps) from Wikipedia which is based on an anti-surrealist agenda, or at least a disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I kindly disagree. I did read the other user's comments and I cannot argue or debate the semantics regarding the definition of author. Yes, I do know about Ron Sakolsky, but I am only stating the obvious without any, "axe-grinding". Yes, Ron Sakolsky is a, "pirate radio expert" (as claimed in the promotion of him and his work) and he is the author of the anthology, "Surrealist Subversions", but the notability of the book and Sakolsky is what is being reviewed. Why be so defensive of this book and author, of all articles? Also, I have not attempted to delete all surrealist connected articles post 1965. I am all for any articles on notable surrealists or surrealist groups, notice I have never placed a vote for deletion for the Czech Groups, or the Svankmayers (I hope I spelled the last name correctly). Your concern regarding this book and author having articles on Wikipedia is interesting, it is a fact that you are a contributor to the book and you are friends with Sakolsky. Why rely on Wikipedia so much to promote your work? It appears that the book does get enough promotion on other websites that SELL the book, why be so concerned about an article on Sakolsky or his book, "Surrealist Subversions" on Wikipedia? Is this author really notable, look at the votes. Either way, if the article stays or gets deleted, you still win, you already have all the free promotion that your heart desires. It appears that Wikipedia is the place to promote your friends in the contemporary surrealism movement, but, are they notable enough for an article? Does the researcher and student benefit from obtaining quality information and material on people that are so fringe, besides the fact that it is really labor intensive to prove the facts on these contemporary surrealists? One and two sentence articles just don't cut it. That should not be the case, but it is and that is not right. I have no, "axe to grind". I am all for surrealism and I do like you, its your actions on here and your attempts for self-promotion for you and your friends that should not be tolerated.Classicjupiter2 19:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

By definition an anthology has more than one author, as it is a compilation of material by multiple authors. You are thinking of the term "editor". Reading "the other user"'s (a phrase much beloved by you and your sock puppets) comments should make clear that the issue is that Sakolsky might be notable for something other than the book (you yourself admit he is a "pirate radio expert"), so linking his notability only to the book is suspect. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you are flogging a dead horse here. It is claimed that Sakolsky is a, "pirate radio expert" in the promotion of him and his work online. Why does Wikipedia of all places on the internet need to have an article on him or his book, unless he is notable? Maybe its because Wikipedia can guarantee exposure for the subjects, Sakolsky and his book for free. After all, he is from the small press and an independent, so its really cool to have an article on here and get your book promoted for free, no less. As for him being a, "pirate radio expert", well, that is another topic of discussion. Upper side band frequency, lower side band frequency. Phase Shift Keying, Low Pass Filters, etc.Classicjupiter2 20:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't it ever occur to you that he might be notable as a pirate radio expert? Why do you just jump to the conclusion that his notability is based on Surrealist Subversions? I don't agree that his being a "pirate radio expert" "is another topic of discussion" at all; that is certainly an issue to be debated in terms of his overall notability. Are you just keeping it out of the discussion in order to focus on Surrealist Subversions on the assumption that everyone will find it non-notable, and then, based on one of his activities, make an assumption about his non-notability? The horse lives. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan, anyone can call themselves an expert on anything (and have themselves promoted as an expert) and Low Power Frequency Modulation and Pirate Radio is a bit fringe for topics from the families of Wireless Communications, but that is just my feeling. I do remember that Loompanics used to sell one of his books, and they also sold a lot of other cool books on Anarchism, How to books, etc, real fringe but very interesting. I have to admit that LPFM is very interesting, has Sakolsky ever written about the use of Low Pass Filters?Classicjupiter2 02:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

cleared of all things Bleedy.Classicjupiter2 02:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sign what you say

When posting comments in talk pages, please remember to sign them, thanks. -- Infrogmation 05:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Ok, Infrogmation, I forgot to do that on Bleedy's talk page! My mistake. I will go and do that now!Classicjupiter2 17:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)