User talk:Plattopus/Archive 1

This is an archive of discussion from User talk:Plattopus.

Votes for undeletion: Daniel C. Boyer

This section has been subjected to repeated insertion of comments within signed contributions. I have endeavored to restore the interrupted contribs without loss of the misplaced material, and to place the previously misplaced material in logical. However, i consider it the responsibility only of those making such insertions to add quotations (from the material they interrupted) if they wish to restore the intended context of their own contribs.

I have striven for accuracy in this, and regret any clerical errors on my part, but i urge anyone inconvenienced to treat any deficiencies as caused by the bad wiki-behavior that i was laboriously attempting to correct. (I shall inspect further for errors by me, before long but not immediately.)
--Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

And I thank you very much for your effort, Jerzy. It's much better now. plattopus^talk 18:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to gratuitous incivility (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&oldid=12893178#Daniel_C._Boyer) you falsely claim that I am trying to get an article for myself in the main namespace. I am not and none of my posts in Votes for undeletion related to this; as a matter of fact, I specifically disclaim it. You owe me an apology. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not claiming that you've never tried this, but least as recently as a month ago, you did try to get an article into namespace[1]. Either that, or there's an anonymous user out there who thinks he's you[2] and happens to live in your home turf[3]. Postdlf 23:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dan, like Platt i also inferred from your previous tenacity on a bio article, your spirited participation in this debate, and your failure to disclaim it in that relevant forum (let alone to vote against it, in an attempt to discredit the sock charges), that you were trying to further it; i still think it was a reasonable inference, even if not an accurate one, and i can't imagine supporting any redress for that assumption, beyond various wordings focused around admitting explicitly that what went on inside your head is unprovable.

An additional concern you raise for me is that (i think) i know what an apology means in Japanese culture, and there are damn few situations where i can imagine providing that. I don't know what it's supposed to mean in my own less stylized or formal culture, so i find other terms for admitting to error, regret, remorse, and the needs for reform and reparation. I don't think your assertion about an "apology" being due is necessarily problematic, but if i were the one that assertion were directed at, your chances of satisfaction would be enhanced by your at least reflecting privately on what terms other than "apology" and "apologize" might be adequate to satisfy you.

I began writing what is below (abt what i think you are fair in describing as "gratuitous incivility") while you were apparently writing the above, and did not consider making any change to it once i realized you had posted in the meantime. (IIRC, i didn't actually read your contrib before wrestling the server to the ground to get mine saved.) I'm not sure that fact is of any significance to you, but there is the information in case it is.

--Jerzy (t) 00:06, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I'd noticed this. It's fine. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, the immediately following material has been moved out of its location within a signed contrib . --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

My tenacity was only focussed on the simple principle that there shouldn't just be one person or one subject who doesn't get fair treatment, and on decrying others who stood on such principles as the principle of incomplete research. I did disclaim it on that forum. It was my opinion that it would have been inappropriate for me to make any vote on an article of which I myself was the subject. Perhaps you have an argument as to why I should have voted against it, and if so, I'm all ears. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, the immediately following material has been moved out of its location within a signed contrib . --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding but my request for an apology related to describing my user page as autofellation and saying that I'd asked the Daniel C. Boyer article to be undeleted, which I didn't. A note about the IP 24.4.127.164: I have never used a computer in New Jersey. The only times I've ever been to Philadelphia, if you can call it that, is when I've passed through it on the train, and the most recent of these was 1998. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may not have explicitly voted for its undeletion, but your mere presence wherever the article is discussed certainly has an impact on such discussions. If you really were noteworthy enough for an article, one would spring up without the need for any VfD's, VfU's, discussions on sock-puppetry, or anything like that. As it stands, you are merely borderline notable (and, according to the VfU, undeserving of an article). You have requested an article on yourself be created, have engaged in a discussion regarding the undeletion of that article... these things can clearly be seen as an effort to further your article, whether it be directly and explicit or indirectly and implied. If you cannot see this, you are obviously too close to the subject to make an objective comment, so therefore it should be left up to the community at large. (hang on a minute... it was.) plattopus^talk 18:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, the immediately following material has been moved out of its location within a signed contrib . --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

None. This is sophistry reasoning that i don't understand, or for other reasons prefer not to discuss substantively. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Personal attack struck through, and replaced in bold by a guess at the pertinent intent of its author, in the preceding sentence. --Jerzy (t) 21:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Regarding your response immediately above to my 'graph beginning

An additional concern ...

(the second 'graph of the contribution, above, that is

less indented than either your response or this counter-response by me, and

the only contrib timestamped "00:06, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)"):

I respect your choice of "none", and appreciate that clear response, which is helpful in its own way.

In contrast to that helpful word, your commenting on the account of my ideas on apology-related terminology, which i offered in recommending your

at least reflecting privately ...

is thoroughly gratuitous, since

that wording clearly implied that your ignoring the recommendation would not call for any justification by you, and

i made no request that you adopt my ideas.

Further, your use of the word sophistry is simple abuse (and thus a personal attack) since

whether it is sophistry is no more of your business than you actual sexual practices are any business of Platt's, and

you implicitly admit i made a plausible argument, yet you fail to offer any hint supporting your further implication that it is also fallacious.

You owe me an admission of wrongdoing, including either an endorsement of what i replaced your attack with, complete removal of the attack, or your own attack-free restatement.

--Jerzy (t) 21:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Daniel, whether you like it or not, if I see you defending an article on yourself in VfU, voting or not, I assume it's purely for vanity and self-importance. Sure, it may not be literally writing an article on yourself, but defending one that has been written is just as bad (especially when you're accused of being involved in it anyway). One look at your user page had me astounded at how high the regard is in which you hold yourself, so to see you anywhere NEAR the VfU discussion immediately had me wondering what you were doing. Of course, it didn't help that you've been accused of sock-puppetry on more than one occasion... people don't make accusations without good reason. My vote to keep the article deleted still stands, perhaps more fervently now than it did when I originally voted. It seems that everyone else who voted agreed.

However, having said that, I do realise that it was stupid of me to word my comments the way I did (see Jerzy's comments below). Where I come from, self-importance (self-congratulation, etc) or ego stroking is analogous to auto-felatio. Of course, I understand that it wouldn't have been nice to be accused of such, so I take it back. I still believe that you are too self-important for your own good, so don't view this as an apology for that, but it is an apology for using the words I did.

But there is one other matter, and that is the blatant misuse of Wikipedia policy just because you feel bad that someone doesn't like you nearly as much as you like yourself. RfC clearly states that you should have taken it up with me here first, and you needed two people to be complaining about me. I see no reason to go to RfC other than to make a point.

plattopus^talk 05:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tnx, Platt, for acting for the peace of the community.

I haven't looked this up for a long time (and i've never really needed to know it for sure, so i haven't now either). I think it's agreed that the RfC procedure requires reasonable prior effort at resolution, but i thot i had seen people open the RfC solo, and a second person who subsequently participated in such effort would sign on following that, in order to meet the two-complainants requirement that opens the RfC process to outsider comments. Please don't feel, either, that you need to go look it up. But i'd be grateful, if you're pretty sure you'd be clearing up a misconception on my part, for your saying that your second thots continue to suggest it as you said: so that all of us following this get alerted to how much attention we need to pay to that, if and when it becomes relevant. (Time for me to shut up, having muddied the waters sufficently....)

--Jerzy (t) 07:22, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to do? Sorry, but I can't understand what you're getting at (whatever it is, though, I'd be glad to do it). plattopus^talk 13:54, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, the immediately following material has been moved out of its location within a signed contrib . --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I never defended the article on myself, not its existence and not its content, and I do not defend it now. I would challenge you to point out any place in which I ever said "the article should exist". You won't be able to find any because there isn't any. When Classicjupiter2 asked if it was o.k. with me if he wrote an article on me you will notice I said it wasn't up to me and advised him he would have to go through VfU. If this was improper in any way, I apologise. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, two following contribs (identifiable by their earlier datestamps) have been moved out of their location within a signed contrib. --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

What is the basis for saying I hold myself in high regard? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, and I quote, "one look at your user page". plattopus^talk 15:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try again. You're ducking the question. What about that look at my user page formed the basis of your statement? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Look at it! It documents practically every material you have ever used, every work you have created, every magazine you have been featured in, etc with such laborious accuracy that it would have taken many hours to complete. Now I'm not saying that documenting some notable achievements on your user page isn't a good thing, but yours is just rediculous. To think that you spend that amount of time writing what amounts to a vanity page astounds me. Now, for someone to spend such time on themselves would lead me to believe that they hold themselves in an abnormally high regard. I am not the only one who has pointed this out (see the VfU discussion for one example).

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You took issue with the fact that I called your user page auto-felatio, a statement I have retracted (in favour of the words I have just written immediately above this paragraph), so we should be done with it. What other issues do you have? plattopus^talk 18:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am serious. Despite what you say, it does not "[document] practically every material [I] have ever used, every work [I] have created, every magazine [I] have been featured in"; it only mentions a small minority of each, the overwhelming majority of which link to some Wikipedia article so that people can see where my bias lies or might lie, or how my judgment might be coloured with respect to those subjects. As an example, I'd be surprised if it documents 5% of my artworks. I don't know how many hours I spent on the user page as a whole, not that it's any of your business, but it must be a tiny fraction of the hours I've wasted on Wikipedia in general.

As you've made a judgment based on an inaccurate basis, this is now another issue I have. I think you should retract this as well. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. You seem to have a penchant for retractions, but unfortunately for you I do not retract my opinions under any circumstances. You might just have to get over the fact that somebody thinks you're pretentious. Now, I believe the matter between you and I to be done with, and as soon as you and Jerzy work out the "sophistry" comments above, hopefully we can all get the hell out of my talk page! plattopus^talk 04:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

If you would bother to read what I wrote, you would notice I am not asking you to retract your opinions (I don't know why you think I have "a penchant for retractions" given that you haven't seen me make any). You think I'm "pretentious"; that's an opinion. What I'm asking you retract is your false claim that my user page "documents practically every material [I've] ever used, every work [I've] created, every magazine [I've] been featured in." There's some question of interpretation here, based on what you mean by "practically," but I think that "practically" anyone could agree that "practically every" wouldn't refer to ~5%. This verges on an inaccurate statement of fact, and it's that I'm asking you to retract, not your opinion, and what I wrote before made that very clear. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you are chasing this up. So not all of your works are listed on your user page, good on you. The fact that you are asking me to retract my comment just goes to demonstrate why it's never a good idea to get in a debate with people like you. You and I no longer have anything to discuss, and I will not be replying to any messages you leave in this thread of discussion regardless of what you say. plattopus^talk 13:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

In order to redress what amounts to a forgery, two following contribs (identifiable by their earlier datestamps) have been moved out of their location within a signed contrib. --Jerzy (t) 17:17, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Sometimes, even frequently, they do. But I'm sure you know this. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. In this case, however, I don't believe it's the case. plattopus^talk 15:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

DCB incident

First (FYI, since i don't think your approval would be relevant), i removed the entry against you on RFC, since it ignored the basic procedure and in effect was simply a personal attack in the form of an attempt to besmirch your name by its mere presence on RfC.

Second, i'd rather you hadn't used that pungent metaphor (satisfyingly pungent tho i have to admit finding it!), and i hope if DCB approaches you about it you'll at the least have the grace to explain, explicitly, temperately, and without irony,

• the substantive criticism of his page you were making, and
• its objective relevance to the issue of the non-notability such a bio would have if undeleted.

As far as i can see now, that would cover the matter for me.
--Jerzy (t) 22:36, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Thanks Jerzy, I have apologised for the wording of my comments (see above).

Restoring integrity of signed contribs

Yr welcome. I'm not sure it's anyone's method but mine, and i'm (1) a compulsive jerk and (2) on top of that, my status as a reformed contrib-interrupter justify suspicion of my methods as being extreme. But IMO ignoring the problem is unacceptable, and simply reverting it introduces other problems.
Thanks, in return, for tolerating well what is arguably my intrusiveness repair of your page.
--Jerzy (t) 19:54, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus, response about DCB

Thank you Plattopus for warning me about DCB. I really appreciate that you stopped on by my talk page to discuss this issue with me. DCB was already given a final warning by user:postdlf, if I am correct. What concerns me is that someone who is researching surrealism will come to this Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_techniques and see DCB's art on exhibit in the page and assume that its legitimately notable. DCB has already infiltrated articles in his favor for him and his surrealist friends, and I need to ask you for your input into this surrealist techniques article that DCB is displaying his art on. I don't think that is fair to all of us and its really deceptive. Here DCB gets to have free exposure in an encyclopedia and he is already self-promoting on that particular article, it just is not right. Plattopus, what is more troubling is the nature of the art that DCB has on display in that article, which gives it the appearance of notability to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Plattopus, please go to the article in question on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_techniques and scroll down towards the bottom and click on DCB's "THE SANDSTONE ERECTIONS.....", the title is so long and downright silly, I am not sure if this is not some kind of prank on us all. Plattopus, the issue that needs to be addressed is one of merits. DCB is taking a big shortcut to notability without even earning it on its own merits. Those artworks are just downright silly and really do not belong in that article or any article on here. I would fully support the art being on display on his user page, which is already available for his exhibit purposes, but not that article or any other one, until DCB gains substantial notablility on his work's merits without the help of a free encyclopedia service to be taken advantage of, along with the rest of us. It is just not fair. If I were a college student doing a paper on surrealist techniques and presented a paper to my professor using DCB's work as a reference source, the credibility factor would jeopardize my paper, especially when you look at the nature of DCB's work on free display here at Wikipedia.Classicjupiter2 00:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, thank you for your input about DCB. In regards to the surrealist techniques article, I think its best to remove all DCB material and art from that article. I am not sure about how to go about this all at once and any feedback you can provide will be a huge help. I do know a lot about the subject of surrealism and surrealist techniques and DCB's work is not at all notable to justify its presence in the particular surrealist techniques article without earning its historic or notable importance based on merit. DCB might definitely protest, claiming that his art in that article was requested by another Wikipedia user, but I think that is a real shady argument, if DCB makes that claim to keep his stuff in that article. Plattopus, if DCB's art and mention stay in that article, it really is harmful to the integrity of quality information on surrealism here at Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is primarily for research and study and that DCB info and art in that article is really misleading. Both you and I can pour ink down a piece of paper and call it surrealist art, this all might be some kind of prank for all we know. Did you see the titles for DCB's art techniques? Something needs to be done and I thank you again for your input and help.Classicjupiter2 15:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The following was inserted directly into Classicjupiter2's comments above, thereby vandalising his contribution. It has been reproduced here in the order it originally appeared, outside of the above comments. plattopus^talk 17:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cites?

Read my talk page and the numerous, numerous times I've reiterated it's in response to a request for examples.

This is POV and highly misleading. The silliness, in the case of "movement of liquid down a vertical surface," has to do with the technique, not the particular example of it. If you'd read anything or know anything about Trost and Luca you'd see that what they advocated was really, really radical (though the case could certainly be made that some saw it as silly, and I'd invite you to write about this POV on the article page).

If you were a college student presenting a paper that presented only one little part of Wikipedia as a source, you'd deserve an F. You should consult a number of on- and offline sources to fully realise the notability of any subject or figure. Furthermore, if after a careful consulation of Wikipedia you got the idea that I am a highly notable figure, with all the discussion of my non-notability on here, I'd be quite surprised.

It's called "movement of liquid down a vertical surface," which you'd know if you'd bother to read the article. Read Dialectique de dialectique; it's intended to be radical. Get a clue.

Cite, please.

--Daniel C. Boyer 15:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply to your "This is POV and highly misleading" comment... of course it's POV, Classicjupiter2 is replying to you personally. Is he supposed to forget his opinions and converse with you purely in main namespace Wikipedia style unbiased text? plattopus^talk 17:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. You're missing my point. Of course he doesn't have to be unbiased in the talk pages; I'm just saying that as it's a POV it would be improper to revise the article text on that basis. My suggestion actually was to revise the surrealist techniques page to show that there is a range of POVs about these techniques, and one which should be expressed about "movement of liquid down a vertical surface" is the negative one that it's silly, or whatever. If Classicjupiter2 doesn't do this, I'd suggest that you should. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Why not remove his name and the titles from the article image captions, though leave them on the image description pages? The images are there to illustrate what applications of the techniques look like, and because Boyer and his works are not known that information adds nothing to a reader's understanding. Postdlf 18:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus and Postdlf, the article can be improved by some edits and revisions. There is one passage that really needs to be removed and re-worked according to fact and notablilty, and given a new sub-title according to a verifiable reference. "The Movement of Liquid...." passage with Dan's artwork, ""The Sandstone Erections Masked Badlands the Utahian and Delicate Spires Exclaved by Torquemada's Blister Which Is Your Very Special Freckle" (2004) can go on his user page. As for the mention of Romanian surrealists using that technique, I need to find out the reference material and sources for that passage, if its noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Any of Joan Miro's or Max Ernst's work is worthy of mention in that article, due to their historic significance. Daniel's friend, Richard Genovese, (he is a collaborator and friend of Dan's and his article just survived VfD by the skin of its teeth) really don't belong on there, but I will not remove or edit anything until I get feedback from you both. I fully support any display or exhibition of art made by Daniel C. Boyer on his own user page, there is nothing wrong with that, but not in this particular article, or any others.Classicjupiter2 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Daniel's name appearing in the article per se... it's the fact that he was the one who put it in there, and that he continues to fight for his right to appear in the article. If someone who is unaware that he's a member here adds his name to the article, then I guess that can be taken as a sign of his notability, but for the moment I think his self-promotion should be contained to his user page (or more appropriately, his own hosted website). plattopus^talk 15:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Either you have not bothered to read what I've said about this, or you are lying. I do not and have not fought for my "right to appear in the article". What I've said, in summary, is that I have no objection (though it doesn't matter whether I have an objection or not, in the sense that I hardly have "veto power" over the Surrealist techniques article) to the replacement of my illustrations, which if you'd bother to read my User talk page you can see were made in response to a request, with others made or found, as long as they are copyright-free. I don't think, however, that an encyclopedia should fail to cite sources where appropriate, and certainly I don't think that certain sources should be cited and parallel examples treated a different way. If you describe this as fighting for my right to appear in the article, we are through the looking glass. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, I completely agree. I do have doubts about the convenience of the, "request" by another user who might be unaware of Boyer being a registered member and adding his name and art to the surrealist techniques article. Considering Boyer's own actions and behavior regarding the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion and his constant denial of the obvious, I really cannot trust the information on him in any Wikipedia article unless it can be verified by credible reference sources without any involvment by Boyer at all. For all we know, this person who made the request can be a friend of Boyer's (most likely deny it too) and Boyer could have arranged it. I know this is difficult to prove and I would give Boyer the benefit of the doubt, but its his vigilance to defend his position (and actions) on here that raises way too many red flags. Basically, if Boyer was legit, he would not even be bothered by any of this, nor would he even argue this at all on both of our talk pages. The rude comment breaks on both our talk pages is another matter, but that does not help his case either. Plattopus, thanks for your feedback and I can make the necessary changes without removing too much from the article and preserve its integrity.Classicjupiter2 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, thank you for the thread formatting on my talk page. You are more than welcome to stop on by to make repairs. The inserts by DCB can be frustrating. Now its fixed. Oh, I made the edit changes on the surrealist techniques article, but I left Boyer's friend Richard Genovese's stuff in there for now. Plattopus, its not only just Boyer promoting Boyer on here, he also does it for his friends. That is old news and could really wear you out. Boyer has created a number of surrealism-related articles for him and his friends on here and practically all of them were voted for deletion. Anyway, I hope that its all over now and hopefully for Boyer, I do wish him all the success on his art and work, but it must stand on its own merits without Wikipedia being used as a springboard to notability, its not fair to any of us or the Wikipedia community that does the research.Classicjupiter2 21:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus, about DCB

Daniel C.Boyer went and reverted user:Postdlf's changes on the surrealist techniques article by putting the caption information with his credits back into the article. Then Boyer calls Postdlf's changes, "vandalism"! (see Boyer's talk page) Boyer is really being impossible and belligerent. He refuses to work with any of us on this matter. I don't want to get into an edit war on that article, I agreed to keep Boyer's art illustrations in there, as did Postdlf, as long as the caption information does not stay. Boyer is not notable enough to even be mentioned in that article and Boyer claims that he should be credited for the illustrations on there. I think that's a real cheap and sleazy attempt by Boyer to promote his work, its just way too obvious and Boyer refuses to work this out. Plattopus, please let me know any advice or feedback on how to resolve and address this issue without an edit war or the article being compromised.Classicjupiter2 16:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific line of action to deal with general bad seeds. Maybe take it to RfC and see where that gets us? (oh, the irony!). plattopus^talk 16:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, I figure that the best thing to do first, would be for me to go back and change it back to the original version that user:Postdlf had it and then I will ask Boyer, "Dan, please do not change it back, please", real nice and see if he makes the attempt to revert it back. If another user, like Postdlf comes along and fixes it, by reverting any potential Boyer revert, most likely he will be asked not to do so again. This is all a guess, but I figure that if two other people try to talk to Boyer to help solve the issue before any RFC listing, it shows that all good faith attempts have been used for resolution. I will give Boyer one more chance and I will kindly ask him not to revert it back. Then I will see if someone else comes by to help. I figure that its best to try to fix this before an RFC listing and show that we exhausted all avenues with Boyer. I will give him one last chance to leave the article alone by not placing his credits under the art illustrations. My goodness, he already has the art illustrations on the article page, talk about greedy!Classicjupiter2 19:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Postdlf already changed it back, thank goodness. I left a message on Boyer's talk page, practically begging him not to revert it back. If he does, (or anyone else does on Boyer's behalf), then an RFC on Boyer is the way too go. Everyone here is being way too nice to Boyer and he is pushing it. His reponse comment towards Postdlf being a law student was rude and out of line. Anyway, I hope he behaves and if he or anyone else reverts it back to Boyer's wishes, then RFC!Classicjupiter2 19:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah those comments about Postdlf were completely out of line, especially considering how often he has attempted to pull me up for my comments about him. Anyway, I fully support any effort against DCB and will do whatever is required to deal with him properly. plattopus^talk 20:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your bias is quite interesting considering that my comments exactly parallel Postdlf's (a bad seed, certainly, who, inter alia, stands on the principle of shoddy research) comments about me. Plattopus, why won't you do whatever is required to deal with Postdlf properly? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Because he has a hell of a lot to offer this encyclopedia. I don't view his comments as anything like a parallel of yours, but if Postdlf was to act in the same way as you, I think his general value to Wikipedia is enough to justify overlooking any discretion. You, on the other hand, have been very little but trouble. plattopus^talk 20:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Q.E.D. This is tantamount to an admission of bias. If you'd bother to read what he wrote, you'd see that they are as exact as a parallel can be. As for your assertion that I've been "very little but trouble," has this been based on reading my user contributions, or is that one of the many things you haven't bothered to read? I've contributed extensively to very many articles. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Again with accusing people of not reading things. If you honestly believe that people aren't following a discussion, why are you constantly replying? Of course I have read what you wrote, so I don't see how that can be an issue. It's very easy to accuse people of misunderstanding what you say rather than coming up with a valid point to counter them. And the "very little but trouble" comment has to do with the fact that the very first comment I ever made in a discussion regarding you (the VfU page) resulted in a frivolous RfC and a week of senseless arguing. In my experience (and that's all I can speak for), I have never seen any positive contribution from you. And yes, I have read your contrib history... there's a high proportion of contentious articles and discussions on those articles. plattopus^talk 20:51, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't frivolous. It was because you stood on the principle of lying. You said that I'd listed every artwork I'd ever made on my user page, &c. when this was beyond a reckless exaggeration, and though you didn't continue to maintain this was true you wouldn't retract it. You can speak for more than your own experience, you can read my contribution history and see the massive amount I've contributed not only to articles on surrealism, but heraldry and a number of other subjects. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It was frivolous, because it was immediately removed from the RfC page for being completely unnecessary and out of process. Regardless of what you say, the fact is that others agreed with me that it should never have gone to RfC. So it doesn't matter if you believe I maliciously lied by using the words "practically every"... what does matter is that issue has been dealt with and you are only bringing it up to divert attention from the rest of my comments. But now, since you say "[y]ou said that I'd listed every artwork I'd ever made on my user page"... should I list you on RfC for lying? I did not say that you listed every artwork, I said you listed practically every artwork. You might see this as an insignificant difference, but its just as trivial a matter as the issue that you originally listed me on RfC for. This is the perfect example of the absurdity of your actions in this entire discussion.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with your work on heraldry... you don't continually attempt to insert yourself into articles on that subject. Don't divert attention from the (still unanswered) points that myself and CJ2 are bringing up. plattopus^talk 21:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

My listing you on RfC wasn't "out of process", because I listed you under the "candidates" section, as I'd said before, meaning that only I had attempted to deal with you, without success. No one else saw it as an issue worth pursuing, and, fair enough, that's how the process is supposed to work. As for my mistatement about what you said, I apologise. I think you should do as much to me, after which, why don't we both let it drop. If I had an idea what the "this" is I could discuss it, but as I don't continually try to insert myself into articles on surrealism, I'm in the dark as to what you're talking about. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It was out of process, and you know it. You still have not addressed that fact that at no stage did you attempt to discuss the matter on my talk page. You went straight to RfC after you saw the comments (it doesn't matter which part of RfC you used), and it clearly states on the RfC page that you should have come here first. I will not apologise for believing your user page to be inappropriate and against the spirit of user page policy. plattopus^talk 16:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did attempt to discuss the matter on your talk page. Look at the section about VfU. I did not ask you to apologise for your belief that my user page is inappropriate and against the spirit of Wikipedia, as this is merely an opinion, and I wouldn't ask you to apologise for that. What I asked you to apologise for was your claim that virtually all of my artwork is posted on my user page when in fact only a minescule percentage is, and this is something that approaches fact. That said, I think it would be best for Wikipedia if we both dropped this issue, which is consuming far too much time and energy. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, the following is also on my talk page, but I wanted to make sure that you read it, so that we can address this problem according to the measures that you mentioned. I am all for it.Classicjupiter2 16:05, 11 May 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) Classicjupiter2 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus, I wrote the following to Boyer as a response to the never ending dialogue on my talk page. In case you didn't get the chance to read it, I will post it word for word below,

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)

19:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Ok, I think I've done what amounts to pretty much a complete rewrite at this point.  ; ) I hope that I haven't distorted anything you wanted to say, but I'm pretty confident in how it flows and its documentation. What we need more of is specific incidents of personal attacks documented, particularly regarding other users beyond you, me, and CJ2. The more the better. Postdlf 23:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, that's fantastic. Good work! plattopus^talk 05:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Plattopus and Postdlf, remember that Boyer stated that is is not friends with nor has he met the people from the other surrealist articles here on Wikipedia. That statement is downright false. Boyer is friends with and he is also a collaborator with many of the surrealists and surrealist groups that had articles on here (some created thanks to Boyer) that were VFD off Wikipedia. When Daniel C. Boyer stated that he is not friends with any of these surrealist people, then I ask you both to go read his exact words on the following page, (read the very first paragraph written by Boyer's friend from the Portland Surrealist Group), this was also a redirect as well, its so obvious, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Portland_Surrealist_Group Classicjupiter2 00:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Some good DCB evidence here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss#A_Surrealist_Protests_.28Thread_closed.29 Classicjupiter2 00:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Boyer accuses user:Tygar of being, "anti-surrealist" when Tygar votes to delete article on Boyer's friends. I also highly recommend that you read this entire talk page and look for the overwhelming evidence that both me and user Wyss found regarding how Boyer's surrealist friends promote online (check that forum link on that page), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cantabria_Surrealist_Group Classicjupiter2 00:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You have more familiarity with that discussion, so it might be best if you gather all the evidence and collate it into readable form on /DCB. I think it's a good demonstration of his character, regardless of the fact it isn't strictly related to the events of the past couple of weeks. plattopus^talk 05:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think we'd be better to keep it to what we can attribute solely to Boyer rather than trying to establish some kind of "guilt by association" thing. I think there are valid issues regarding his general POV involvement in surrealism-related Wikipedia edits as a whole, but that is going to muddy the issues, and will also go beyond what I can certify to. "Promoting surrealism", or a particular view of it, is also too difficult to show, at least as merely one issue among many. First let's get a community consensus on his self-promotion and his open hostility towards anyone who tried to discourage or combat these attempts, and hopefully a community consensus agreeing with my conclusions about the anonymous IPs. Those are my chief concerns. Then we can see where we go from there. One battle at a time... Postdlf 05:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I have made the page live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer. Postdlf 06:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I moved your response to his RFC explanation out of the midst of his overall response—from what I've seen elsewhere, that's the space for him to provide an uninterrupted explanation of the disputed conduct, not for more discussion. Postdlf 18:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That's cool, I just hope it's prominent enough for people to read it where it is. His defense on that point is an out-and-out lie, and people need to know that. plattopus^talk 18:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

That can be seen from what is linked to. Just sit back for awhile and let other people see his explanations for what they are. It simply isn't necessary to contradict everything he says, and it makes it look more like this is just a personal conflict rather than a problem with his systemic conduct. Postdlf 18:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep that's fair enough. I guess the evidence we've compiled should speak for itself! plattopus^talk 18:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, and Postdlf, I do agree with the both of you regarding the above. I think its a good idea to just sit back and chill out. Plattopus, and Postdlf, I also wanted to let you both know that I think we haven't even come close to the issues with DCB. I didn't want to post this on the RFC page, without the both of you looking at this first. Let me warn you both, brace yourself for a bumpy ride, you have to read the following. My brain is already toast from just these ten Wikipedia links on here, there is a HUGE amount of stuff that we haven't even come near. Anyway, I hope DCB will see the light, in the meantime, I am a little toasted from all of this, because, once you read what is on these ten Wikipedia pages, you will understand. Brace yourself, it gets intense,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Relevance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Problem_users/Daniel_C._Boyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/archive_1b#Surrealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Le_Punching-Ball_et_la_Vache_%E0_lait_:_La_Critique_universitaire_nord-am%E9ricaine_face_au_Surr%E9alisme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Surrealist_Wikipedians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.85.213.254

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.228.174.174

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Forecast_is_Hot%21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Katherine_Jacobson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/On_other_wikipedias

You have to read the other pages.Classicjupiter2 03:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think these are, at best, cumulative evidence of his involvement in discussions about his article, which we already have a more direct showing of from the VfD link. If you want to add in a couple links that involve him openly engaging claims of his nonnotability (such as "relevance", or the first anon talk page comment) into the present RFC structure, be my guest. However, a few links don't have any relevance as condemning evidence (particuarly the "Surrealist Wikipedians" and "The Forecast is Hot" links). The "Katherine Jackson" link furthermore doesn't show his conduct, just how much it antagonized someone else into improperly disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Postdlf 06:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Australian Flag Image

Plattopus, I just wanted to tell you that I am getting a grey "missing image" inscription for the Australian flag image by your signature. I hope this helps you. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the Aussie flag image seems to have disappeared (see Australia). plattopus^talk 16:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing a red notice now Due to a hardware failure, some images are temporarily unavailable which I presume to be the reason. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

More Boyer Promotion on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treatise_of_Pataphysical_Anatomy&action=history

How convenient of Daniel C. Boyer to overlook the article that he created on May 26,2003 here on Wikipedia when he was making the changes to his user page, he did not take out mention of his contribution to the book, "Treatise of Pataphysical Anatomy" published by Spider Web Productions on his user page. I am posting this on Plattopus's talk page, without even bringing this up at the RFC, just to show Boyer that I do have a heart and I am willing to forgive the allegations that he posted on the RFC page in his reply, in order to divert attention away from the topic of discussion, which is his use of Wikipedia. I want Plattopus and Postdlf to see this, and I also want Daniel to see this, of course, without posting this on to the RFC page.

First, Daniel, let me tell you, that I was considering forgiving your actions and behavior on Wikipedia and I was going to recommend a progressive form of internet rehabilitation in your use of this service, that is, not to have you banned from editing the surrealism articles, as long as you do not promote yourself and your friends. However, since you decided to use the RFC page, in your response, to make allegations against me, was not cool at all and I am not happy over that! For the benefit of all Wikipedians and for the benefit of your rehabilitation, Daniel, I want to tell you that was not cool to do. In my mind's eye, that was no different than the lame RFC posting that you did against Plattopus, though that was more serious, since he was the main topic of your RFC!!! I am a forgiving person, and I was hoping that you will see the light and chill out. I was hoping that your actions on here would be corrected in accordance with the evidence that has been presented on the RFC page, which you created in the first place for the past two years or more on here. Daniel, I am not happy with you right now, but I can forgive you and let it go. You need to show me that you are rehabilitated and I will support your right to edit as long as you do not promote yourself. Daniel, listen carefully and take this advice, this is real serious, if you screw this chance up, well, then it was your last chance of hope from my end. I have not discussed this with either Plattopus or Postdlf, they have their own lives to live, as do I. I was hoping that the outcome of the RFC will be a win for everyone, yes, Daniel, including you, if you agree to rehabilitate your use of Wikipedia. Remember, Daniel, your future response to this, be it here or on the RFC page, will show me how you changed, either for the better, or for worse. I have faith in you, Daniel, and I hope you will do the right thing. Be careful, please.Classicjupiter2 23:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The allegations I made against you are unrefuted. I think the most likely interpretation is that you are writing this to divert attention from those allegations, though I am willing to entertain that there may be some other reason. I was hoping that the actions you have taken in regards to your "surrealist deletion account" and its numerous sock-puppets would be corrected in accordance with the evidence that has been presented on the RFC page, but I am down to my last hope on this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You just blew your last chance of hope with me. Good luck, Daniel.Classicjupiter2 19:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

N.b. My allegations are still unrefuted. You didn't make any attempt to refute them. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with CJ2, discuss it on his user page. This has nothing to do with me. plattopus^talk 20:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus

Plattopus, I just wanted to ask you, if you were aware of this new RfC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Postdlf I thought I was hallucinating when I seen this and my eyes had to readjust themselves in order to prove that what I was looking at was real.Classicjupiter2 00:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it and have engaged in discussion with Postdlf and DCB about its existence. I couldn't believe it either. plattopus^talk 10:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Plattopus, I need your help

Plattopus, I need your help. This is Classicjupiter2. There is a friend of Daniel C. Boyer who goes by the user name, Bleedy, his real name is Eric W.Bragg and he is vandalizing my talk page, by removing sections of discussion from the sections of my talk page. You can see the edit removals he made here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Classicjupiter2&action=history and here, (cur) (last) 21:18, 19 May 2005 Bleedy. I don't know how to approach placing a large portion of the material he took out, back in. This guy is a surrealist friend of Boyer's, who Boyer is now trying to get an article on here, from the Requested Articles page, Boyer is using this guy Bleedy's website, http://www.surrealcoconut.com as a reference to a requested article submission made by Boyer, see Requested Articles, go to Surrealism, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Surrealism#Surrealism 19:43, 15 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requested articles/Surrealism (Austin Surrealist Group) Anyway, I don't know how to place all the subsections of dialogue that Bleedy removed back in, without ruining the formatting of the whole page. My talk page is a reference that is listed on the RfC page on Boyer, and now that Boyer's friend Bleedy vandalized my talk page, by removing sections, I don't know what to do. I need your help.Classicjupiter2 21:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Dream Theater solo projects

Hi Plattopus, I found you after I added An Evening with John Petrucci and Jordan Rudess. What irrelevant info did you remove? Also, I plan on updated other prog rock solo projects, mainly Kevin Moore's work, Jelly Jam, and Jordan Rudess. Are you familiar with these also? I'd imagine so, given the depth of the DT FAQ you did. Glad someone mentioned poor ol' Charlie. Justabaldguy 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the information about LTE because it has nothing to do with JP/JR. That info belongs on John and Jordan's individual pages, and on the LTE page, but not on every other one of their side-projects.

It's great to see someone interested in the side-project articles, they are all a bit lacking at the moment! I did plan to work on them eventually, but I don't see myself getting around to it any time soon. I will contribute when I can though. plattopus^talk 10:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I also found out how to compare previous versions, so I see it now (I'm still pretty new at this!). That's a good adjustment then. I was looking to note that JP/JR have worked together before on solo/side projects. For example, they did State of Grace on one of the LTE albums, and they play it on this one too. That sounds more like a note to add at the bottom though. Thanks for the help, I'm hoping to get Chroma Key done this weekend. Justabaldguy 12:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C.Boyer, again

Plattopus, I need your advice on Boyer. In regards to this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_techniques Boyer is promoting his friend, Richard Genovese. There is not one, (again, not one) textbook or legitimate reference source that I can find that mentions Daniel C.Boyer's friend, Richard Genovese's inventions or work in surrealist techniques. To keep any mention of Genovese in that article is deliberately misleading to any student or researcher. This man, Genovese, is a friend of Boyer's and I cannot find any real or legitimate textbook, university or art media sources on this Genovese's work in surrealist techniques. On top of that, Boyer recently failed at trying to keep a bogus RfC against me, which was taken off Wikipedia, now he is calling my edits, "vandalism". Also, I caught Boyer at self-promotion again, in the Ted Joans article, where Boyer had his art image right on the article's page, see that page's history. I removed it. It was an outagraph artwork made by Boyer, with Boyer's credits on it, no less, right on the article's page. Boyer is not Ted Joans. That is obvious. Anyway, this Genovese being mentioned in that surrealist techniques article, cannot stand. You do not have to be familiar with surrealism, to know that the information on Boyer's friend, Genovese is bogus, just do the research like any other Wikipedian. You cannot find one textbook or legitimate reference source that mentions Genovese's alleged work in surrealist techniques. Genovese does have an article on here, barely surviving VfD, twice, by the skin of its teeth. It is just not right and it is not fair to the Wikipedia community for Boyer and his friends to use this service for self-promotion. He is also way out of line with the past RfC's, against anyone that disagrees with him. I need your help.Classicjupiter2 23:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I'm completely over dealing with any of this DCB crap anymore. Good luck, you have my support, but I just don't have the time to deal with it. plattopus^talk 03:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. As long as I know that I have your support, I can understand your decision about DCB and not wanting to be involved. He is beyond help. I just will not allow him to abuse this service.Classicjupiter2 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bleedy is aka Eric W.Bragg a real Dickhead Deluxe from San Mateo, California. In real life do you know what this shmucks job is. He is the official NAMBLA clown. He even has the nerve to write a book about it. Daniel C.Boyer Wikipedia Troll.