User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Discussion over the content

Reference as being a wikipedia editor

I question the need or desirablity of the following in the article:

Boyer also edits Wikipedia—see User:Daniel C. Boyer.

--Dante Alighieri 20:29 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My opinion is that (a) being an editor for a large encyclopaedia is an important part of a person's life, even if it's not their official profession, and therefore merits inclusion in a biographical article, and that (b) internal links within Wikipedia articles should only be to other Wikipedia articles, not to odd pages like "User:" pages or "Wikipedia:" pages or whatever. This is what ordinary readers who are not familiar with our ways would expect. They might expect to get a nice NPOV article about something, and might get confused if confronted with someone's rants about politics or whatever. (Hypothetically speaking - I can't remember what is on Daniel C. Boyer's user page.) Perhaps a link to a "User:" page should be classified as an external link...? -- Oliver P. 01:14 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I have explained in the article that User:Daniel C. Boyer is a Wikipedia user page. It shouldn't be included in the normal "see also" fashion, because that is for other Wikipedia articles, which that page is not. I'm still not entirely sure it shouldn't be classified as some sort of external link, though. It's not external to the Wikipedia website as a whole, but it is external to the main article space. -- Oliver P. 11:44 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've decided that user pages should be included as external links, because they are not in the main article space. Furthermore, we want our articles to be usable by other people, on other websites. All our special Wikipedia-oriented pages will be external links, for them. -- Oliver P. 07:38 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You do realize that by stating "Daniel C. Boyer's Wikipedia user page" you are fooling nobody; rather, you are making it plainly clear that the link is to a wikipedia user page - which, is certainly located at www.wikipedia.org Pizza Puzzle

I don't understand what you mean. My intention is not to fool anybody. If I am not fooling anybody, then I have been successful, yes? -- Oliver P. 00:50 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Why did you delete Boyer's status as a volunteer? Does he get paid for his work? Pizza Puzzle

He's no more a "volunteer editor" for the Wikipedia than anyone else is. None of us get paid for this. To say that someone is a volunteer editor suggests that there is some other type of editor who isn't a volunteer editor. That's what it suggests to me, at least. Perhaps we should call it a "volunteer-run" encyclopaedia, and that would clear everything up. -- Oliver P. 00:50 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Larry Sanger was paid, briefly. Martin

---

The reason I orignally put in the article "Boyer also edits Wikipedia" was because it provides a kind of POV warning or "statement of interests". Readers should be warned that material in this encyclopedia may be influenced by the fact that Daniel Boyer himself is an active participant. It also gives editors an indication that this is an area of Wikipedia where vigilance is required to maintain NPOV. Well done to Daniel Quinlan, for actually applying some of that vigilance rather than just dreaming about it. -- Tim Starling 06:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the "Boyer also edits Wikipedia" statement is warranted in the interests of disclosure, but I would question where the complained-of works deviate from NPOV. If they do, someone please fix them! But point out where they are not NPOV! --Daniel C. Boyer 12:46 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

POV

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

See http://www.angelfire.com/art2/danielcboyer/resume.html, for example. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:27, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alma College "claim"

Should it be changed from "claimed" to "claims" here? I think it is in the past tense because of the reference from a particular point in the past, but I do continue to claim this. Any thoughts? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:15, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Echo drawing

What should be done about the subject of echo drawing? If people find an article about echo computer graphics inappropriate, clearly they would find an article about echo drawing just as inappropriate. Should this article be changed to discuss both echo drawing and echo computer graphics equally? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A seperate article on echo drawing would indeed be inappropriate. Martin

That's totally not my point! What I am asking is how this article could be changed! --Daniel C. Boyer 19:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your revision solves the problem I was asking about. Thank you. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:48 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Self portrait

Should it be mentioned in the alt text that this self-portrait is a photograph? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

be bold in doing stuff yourself. :) Martin 23:10 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

E bay and obscurity

The factoid about e-Bay is useful to allow the reader to evaluate the importance of Boyer's work. I reinstated it. Martin 21:20, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I reinstated it again. I also reinstated "obscure". Both are useful to the reader.

If someone who isn't Boyer reverts me, I'll be happy to give way. Martin 08:38, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(from Martin's talk page)

I believe that you have gone from reasonable questions about Daniel C. Boyer to pursuing a POV agenda. Please correct me if I am misapprehending your intentions, but the use of the word "obscure" and so forth... --Daniel C. Boyer 00:38, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re e-Bay: I refer you to the edit at [1], 22 Mar 2003, by, uh, you. If it was important enough then, it is important enough now.

But there is some question here that you seem to be ignoring. Clearly this would be more relevant to The Tailgating Spinster than to an article on me in general. Response? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:38, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

re "obscure" - are you saying that you are not obscure? Martin 08:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am by no means arguing that I am not obscure, or, for that matter, arguing that I am obscure. I believe either would be inappropriate. I am only saying that obscurity or the lack thereof is subjective and in my opinion crosses into POV. If in your opinion and that of others a significant amount of my editing of Wikipedia was motivated by a desire for self-promotion, surely vigilance against that POV should not be pursued so that Wikipedia can be edited from a desire to artificially deflate my importance. I'm not arguing as to where specifically that line should be drawn, but I think the use of the word "obscure" here is as POV as if I were to edit Daniel C. Boyer to say, "the famous artist". Both would be wrong. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:23, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In general, undisputed facts do not pose a problem to our NPOV policy, and I don't see that anyone is disputing your obscurity as an artist. However, I do like the word "aspiring" in the current version, and I think that is an improvement. Martin 16:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Inclusion of inaccurate content

People keep editing Daniel C. Boyer to include more and more inaccurate information. Whatever may have been wrong with my behaviour, shouldn't someone do something about this situation? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:31, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

• I do not and did not contribute "primarily to articles on popular culture". (This may be debated but I do not believe it to be true.)
• The Tailgating Spinster was not self-published; this is an outageous and knowing lie. I have no part whatsoever in the running of Fiji Island Mermaid Press. Furthermore, I am the least active participant in terms of what has been published by FIMP.
• "Donnelly" was not created for the Catalyst. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:53, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Donnelly. I changed the wording from:

Donnelly is a comic strip by Boyer that appeared sporadically in 1993 and 1996 in a number of periodicals including The Colorado College Catalyst.

to

Donnelly is a comic strip by Boyer that appeared sporadically in 1993 and 1996 which was originally created for his school paper, The Colorado College Catalyst.

becuase I felt that saying "a number" was both misleading and too ambiguous. I tried finding the other periodicals that it was published in, but I could find no information about the comic online whatsoever. If you can provide a number of publications, or even better, the names of the publications, that would be better. MB 18:49, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Echo drawings should include mention of echo paintings and computer graphics

I think it should also be noted in some concise way that the "echo drawing" has also been done in two other mediums: computer graphics and painting. ("The Leek and the Schismatic," the first echo computer graphic, and "Mysteries of the Erotic Cinema," a gouache and glow-in-the-dark acrylic that was the first echo painting, are details too insignificant to be listed in the article.) --Daniel C. Boyer 13:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds unimportant to me. Might as well note that you breathe air. --mrd

Unimportant that echo drawing exists in two other media? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Kat's questions

Mr. Boyer,

This matter seems hardly worth the trouble but, in the interest of a stronger Wikipedia community, and a better encyclopaedia, I am trying to help YOU and all the rest of us by putting together an article that will stand, that is based in fact, and that reflects a NPOV--particularly, one that reflects a neutral, fact-based perspective regarding your artistic works. If you want to cooperate in this effort, fine. If not, perhaps the page *should* be deleted, as others have suggested, since none of us has sufficient knowledge to write about you without your help.

Last night, I went to considerable trouble to review your contributions to Wikipedia, which others have uncharitably characterized as being chiefly about yourself and your artwork. In reviewing what you have written, and leaving aside the Wikipedia contributions you have made about yourself and your artwork, I believe that most of your contributions can be accurately characterized as about "popular culture." There's nothing pejorative about that, and it seems factual. If you think your contributions are chiefly elsewhere, perhaps you could provide a characterization and some examples here on the talk page.

"The Tailgating Spinster" appears self-published. If you would like to refute that, perhaps you can provide some facts. What was the press run? How many copies were sold? What is the ISBN? Can you give some examples of libraries that include the volume in their collection?

Regarding FIMP, I would be happy to remove the verbiage you challenged. Perhaps you could share with us your actual relationship to FIMP since we don't have it right. Was your only relationship that of author-to-publisher or did you have other involvement?

Kat 17:19, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My only relationship was author-to-publisher. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

FIMP is a publisher which will publish anyone's work. By far the series which they have the most of is thier "ME" series which according to thier website, anyone can have a "ME" book made. The website says: Are you just itching to tell your story as well? Email me at books@fimp.net and we'll get you on board. It should be noted that The Tailgating Spinster. is not listed here at all. It also seems that FIMP is just a small time "home grown" publisher, which currently specializes in unpublished artists. This is all based on wht little information I was able to gleam from thier website, and the information I found about the company using a whois look-up, and the BBB. MB 19:11, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Mike, I can understand your confusion on this point. The "ME" series is just a series of "books" that do not really exist, they are just online, and to my knowledge this is the only FIMP series of which this is true. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it also the only work that anyone can contribute to, or is getting published by them as simple as contacting them? I think I will contact them myself and ask just for the heck of it. MB 20:11, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Tailgating Spinster

Is The Tailgating Spinster still in print?—Eloquence 17:16, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:58, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Link to self-publishing

Should the "self-published" be linked to self-publishing? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:22, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Years linked?

Should 2002 and 2003 be linked here? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think anyone has any objections to you linking them yourself. It's been stated that small changes like that need not be done by others. { MB | マイカル } 18:46, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

I object. I don't trust Boyer to edit this article in any way. Martin 00:09, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do it yourself, or explain why this is not a good idea, then. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:18, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin, if he makes a change that you don't like, no one would fault you in reverting it. I don't like this article anymore than you, but he can't hurt anything by fixing date links. { MB | マイカル } 02:53, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Spam magazine

The book received a favorable review in Spam magazine, a local zine in the writer's home town.

I removed this as unverifiable. Did anyone find a reference for it? Martin 15:38, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Two points: 1)What would you like me to do to verify this? (Spam magazine is not on the World Wide Web, the popularity of which its existence pretty much predated.) 2)It confuses me why mention of the negative review of The Octopus Frets was removed. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:45, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the negative review of The Octopus Frets as part of an overall edit to make the article more concise and relevant. The mention of the review in particular was removed for two reasons: 1) it is most unusual to include verbatim quotes of negative reviews in any encyclopedic article, and 2) its inclusion implied a degree of relevance and notoriety that did not, on the whole, seem justifiable. Unlike reviewers, who see it as part of their job to pan irrelevant, unimportant, and poor material, encylopedic works traditionally just drop such subjects.

And no, you don't get any credit for including a negative assessment. That didn't have the effect of providing relevance, balance, or NPOV; after all, any artist, good or bad, has critics. What is called for is factual information about the scope of interest and scope of distribution for your works. Kat 17:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If it's not verifiable, that's fine - it just can't go in the article. Martin 19:48, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Obviously for a print work the verification of the work is the work itself. To not understand this is pointed, willful blindness. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Octopus Frets as "booklet"

For some unexplained reason The Octopus Frets has been downgraded to a "booklet". Martin, can you perhaps explain this? You will be in a better position to do so, possibly, when you receive it. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:41, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

booklet = little book = a book with 32 pages. Seemed more accurate. Martin

You should have received it by now so you can judge for yourself. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

local libraries

[the article includes] non-factual statements, such as that The Octopus Frets is held by "a few local libraries." I have repeatedly debunked this; for example, Tutt Library, at The Colorado College, is 1346.8 miles from here, hardly "local." --Daniel C. Boyer 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The minutae regarding The Octopus Frets is hardly germane; the broader point remains that is simply not widely published no matter how much you may wish it otherwise. You attended Colorado College, did you not?

Yes. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since you admit that it is held in other than local libraries, I am removing that statement and the link to PLDL. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And the Library of Congress, which you cited previously, contains a great number of otherwise unpublished books.

discussion moved to talk:Library of Congress: summary - yes, the above is true.

Assertion that The Octopus Frets is available in "Local libraries"

As I have noted in several places in Wikipedia, although The Octopus Frets is located in "local libraries" (I have noted the Portage Lake District Library and the Van Pelt Library at Michigan Technological University; it is also in the Houghton High School library), it is also located in Tutt Library at The Colorado College, the Library of Congress &c. This might be edited to reflect this. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:51, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is also in the collections of Levin Memorial Library at Curry College (due to my donation). --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I question the existence of the external link to Portage Lake District Library. This is just one of the libraries The Octopus Frets is in and I don't really have any personal connexion to it (I don't work there, I'm not a member of "Friends of the Library," not anything except a library card). -Daniel C. Boyer 00:36, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One cannot help but wonder whether the copies of The Octopus Frets may not have been donated to some of these libraries by the author.

This would more suitably be discussed elsewhere. Possibly on a self-submission page? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:15, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

local may well be a poor choice of words, but overall the page is far more accurate than it was when you were the one most actively editing it. Kat 03:18, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The college library was once local to the author, so "a few local libraries" is accurate. I have explicitly added the Library of Congress.

This may be accurate, but does it not tend to be misleading? If someone read, "a few local libraries," would he tend to think of libraries currently in the author's local area, or would he extrapolate to areas that used to be local to the author? I think the former, and I think this should be revised. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:14, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Martin's solution is best. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:29, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Portage Lake District Library external link

I question how appropriate it is to have an external link to one of the libraries that has The Octopus Frets. I think this is relatively trivial, to say the least, and as I have no personal connexion to PLDL beyond having a library card there, I don't think this external link is warranted. What does anyone else think? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:58, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a reference. See wikipedia:cite your sources. Martin 15:59, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. The only related objection I have is to the misleading "local libraries." --Daniel C. Boyer 16:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Claims" to have invented Echo drawing

My question: it says in the article that I "claim[ed]" to have invented echo drawing. In what way would one go about verifying that I did indeed do so? I did, and I haven't seen this disputed, but in what way, if any, would the "claims" be removed? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To verify the claim itself, one would have to show that nobody had ever previously done a drawing in the fashion of "echo drawing". Good luck...

If/when echo drawing because a popular and widespread technique, and historians of culture regard you as the undisputed inventor, then the wording could be tweaked. Till then, current wording is fine. Martin

The Tailgating Spinster : verifiability

Are the facts about The Tailgating Spinster here verifiable?

• "Fiji Island Mermaid Press [...] listed it for sale on e-Bay for about a week in March 2003." I can't find a statement of this event on the Fiji Island Mermaid Press website. Does e-Bay keep archives of what things it has listed in the past?

I was unable to figure out how to do this. But this doesn't mean 100% it can't be done. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:40, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should I remove as unverifiable? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• "According to Marc Snyder, who runs Fiji Islands Mermaid Press, it was published with a net press run of 50 copies, of which "about 15" have been sold so far." Is this a published statement, or one from private correspondence? Again, I can't find it on the Web. If it's just from private correspondence, I don't think it should stay...

Ah, what constructive contributions I'm making... Oliver P. 03:35, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1. From a past version of The Tailgating Spinster, by Boyer. No idea if it's verifiable.
2. Private correspondence. Could be verified by emailing Marc again, I guess.

Martin 08:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

SUNY Buffalo Library

Included in collections; see http://128.205.2.100/CICS/CWBA/XSMBWEBM/UBLCM.STR?CONVTOKEN=000062821767660&COMMAND=100 . --Daniel C. Boyer 15:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Triviality of the article

Quite seperate from the delete/non-delete issue, I'm concerned about the triviality of the content. For instance do the books or movies warrant a mention, given that they have a tiny readership/viewership, indeed most of Boyer's usenet posts probably have a wider readership, yet no-one has suggested listing all of them (yet). --Imran 21:56, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The movies are no longer mentioned in the article. They were removed a few days ago.

Oh, I added some info on the octopus. It wasn't a redirect at the time, so this seemed ok. Martin 22:23, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Once again, why is no one focussing on my exhibition record, which is vastly more important for determining my significance or lack thereof, than my publication record? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:01, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am going to set up a user subpage, User:Daniel C. Boyer/Exhibitions, and the associated talk page can be used to discuss this issue. But it can't simply be repeatedly ignored. The focus on much more trivial published works of mine is very questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:40, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Vapa gallery

The gallery http://www.vapa.com/gallery/danielcboyer/ and subsequently the site vapa.com has been down for 3 days.

BUT, I was able to find this information using a google search:

Visual art

... vapa.com will provide artists with free web page building tools to develop

their own personal online gallery within the vapa.com community colony. ...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was argued that this article should not be deleted, b/c he has an online gallery? BUT, anyone can make an online gallery, lets all go do it! Oh, but wait, the site's down, darn, I can't put my UML diagrams up :(.

Where was this argument made? I'd like to state that I completely oppose it. Having an online gallery, an extremely common thing for an artist, should not be the sole criterion, and should hardly be one of the criteria, for having an article on the artist in question. Some evaluation of my offline exhibition record should be made somewhere, but this is being completely ignored. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:04, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Co-operation and non respect of npov

"keep, but leave in little doubt to readers that Boyer is an extremely obscure figure, and that his invented techniques"

List more than one (as you use the word "techniques") technique that I invented. I suspect you may be attributing to me the inventions of others. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With my invention of aspiratage, this point is now mute. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"and vanity-published books are neither important or influential in the artworld. If Boyer insists that these assessment are insufficiently neutral, delete."--GWO

I find it increasingly clear that Boyer does not wish to cooperate in the creation of a neutral article that is respectful of relevance and perspective.

Please detail these. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:53, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

He continues to criticise attempts to make a good, fact-based article and has not answered legitimate questions about the scope of distribution of his work, such as the numbers of copies distributed or the in-print status of his books. Perhaps he considers this entire discussion to be some sort of existential statement, experiment, or game.

What is most unfair about this whole business is that the Wikipedia editors who care about factual, relevant content are being expected to root out enough evidence to debunk Boyer's assertions one at a time. Instead, the onus should properly be on Boyer to substantiate the relevance of his work.

Kat 17:44, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is the height of hypocrisy considering that without bothering to root out such alleged "evidence" you have edited Daniel C. Boyer with factually inaccurate information based on nothing more than you own jumping to conclusions. What about you and your lack of interest in a "fact-based article"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think most everyone here understands this, but the question is, what do we do about it? Should we ban Boyer from wikipedia, should we put a soft-ban on his articles since he insists on removing NPOV contributions from others? Should we delete articles about him? Should we create some sort of boiler plate? I know one thing, we definately need to follow our own rules on advertisers, and "edit the article for a neutral point of view, which means deleting praise and adding any 'dirt' available." I for one will be adding a "dirty" section on his dark-side here on wikipedia. MB 17:56, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would point out which NPOV contributions I have insisted on removing. However this may be, however, I believe in the interests of fairness you should point out the POV and inaccurate contributions I have complained of. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is the essence of a POV (anti-Daniel C. Boyer). Clearly, in the interests of NPOV both relevant praise and "dirt" should be included in Daniel C. Boyer. Your admission that you think you should delete praise and only include "dirt" may be an argument for calling you an "Annoying user." I would like someone other than me to pay attention to this avowed un-NPOV procedure.

Interestingly, I included "dirt" on The Octopus Frets by mentioning the Danielle Nierenberg review that described it as "better left unread" but this was then deleted by others. Whatever my other failings have been, I think I deserve a certain amount of credit in terms of NPOV by not attempting to hide an extremely negative assessment of my own book. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, these are not my rules for dealing with advertisers, these are the wikipedia's rules towards people like you who insist on advertising on wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers. These rules are structured this way for exactly this reason, to prevent people from advertising on wikipedia, which is what you are doing! If you can't see this, you are either ignorant, or stupid. MB 20:32, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I have looked at these. They do not say anything like this. They do not specify that only "dirt" (whatever dirt you can find, even, presumably, if it is not relevant) is to be included in an article, whatever article, but nothing positive about the subject; this would be pursuing a POV agenda. If an article is to be NPOV you cannot declare a priori that all your subsequent contributions will be the inclusions of dirt and the stripping of praise from it. You must analyze both for their appropriateness. If you can't see the bias you have admitted to, you are the stupid one. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again that I included dirt on myself in Daniel C. Boyer and that if Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers's standards are to be followed, Nierenberg's review quote should be restored. -Daniel C. Boyer 20:48, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, and I quote "The third form [of advertising] is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view, which means deleting praise and adding any "dirt" available." Now, of course the article is refering to companies, advertising products. But you are essentially advertising a product, yourself, and your art. And unless you are creating the art for free distribution, I concider your posting advertising. Now, if someone else had posted this information, we might not have had a problem. Although, someone may still have eventually found the article, and said "wait a second, this doesn't deserve inclusion in wikipedia", and then posted on VfD. MB 21:10, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Mike, my argument doesn't pertain to whether or not I have been engaging in advertising. I am just saying that while it may be, and almost certainly is, a wholesome corrective in most cases to remove some of the praise and add applicable "dirt" to an article which is advertising, editors should still strive for an NPOV, and not remove relevant or appropriate (expressive of some people's POV but not written as if it were a fact) praise just because it is praise or add irrelevant or inappropriate (including, which I've had a problem with, inaccurate) dirt just because it's dirt. Please interpret it completely generally (I am not making any specific argument about Daniel C. Boyer when I note that the corrective measures, generally appropriate, may shade into a POV against the "advertised" subject or person. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:54, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Michael, Daniel - I wrote the current version of Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers - edited from a previous version from an unlogged in user - it never existed a month ago. It wasn't intended as a rule, or even a guideline - just a reply to an objection non-Wikipedians raise from time to time - that's what the page is about, right?

The "rules" for NPOV are at wikipedia:neutral point of view, which I've studiously avoided editing! Martin 20:55, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we lie to our critics to get them off our backs? If we don't deal with the "third" case this way, then why does it say we do? MB 21:10, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion into this debate, but I think it should be noted that the "rule" Martin wrote looks very much like a description (and not a prescription) to me (it states "normally dealt with", which I, at least, take to mean that this is the way Wikipedians usually react), and not at all misleading. Accusing Martin of lying, it seems to me, is both incorrect and unkind: he's attempting to clarify something that's becoming a serious point of contention. This all is not to say that the deletion of praise and addition of appropriate "dirt" isn't the best response to an advertisement. Only that the debate seems to be edging towards real hostility, and I don't see any need for this. Just one Wikipedian's opinion, Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think we should create Wikipedia:Warning, Wikipedian's are very protective. MB 22:08, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. No worries, Jwrosen, but thanks for intervening. Mbecker and I just kissed and made up on our respective talk pages, so we'll be ok for 24 hours. :) You've got my position down pretty well, though - I was trying to say "this is what we tend to do" rather than "This is what we MUST do! Every time!". Also, it's slightly simplified. I'm going to tweak it a little, because it's probably misleading... Martin 22:33, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Advertisement

I would also like to bring up another question for discussion, do we want to create a precedent for anyone to create an articles about themselves? Are we going to say it is alright as along as the information is contained with-in a Your name here article? Or should we say, "it's alright for anyone to make one article about themselves as long as they don't get out of hand and make articles about every obscure thing they ever did?" Or are we just going to say "who cares, we won't run out of room, it makes no difference!?"

I for one am striving to make wikipedia a source of reliable, and relevant material, and I strongly oppose (as you all already know) anyone writing articles about obscure parts of their personal life. Daniel is advertising himself on wikipedia {Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Advertisers}, and therefore, if this article (and other articles about him) are to be kept, we need to follow our own rules and edit the article for a neutral point of view, which means deleting praise and adding any "dirt" available. MB 16:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

Daniel Boyer contributions

Daniel Boyer does not "mainly write about topics relating to himself". Check his contributions. -- Tim Starling 12:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• Indeed, check his contributions. Taking the last 100 edits, we find (ignoring talk and meta pages):
  • 11 articles or edits relating to himself (Daniel C. Boyer, List of American companies, Carl Benjamin Boyer, Fiji Island Mermaid Press, Idealist Press International Ltd., Polyvinyl chloride, Internet in art, Echo poem, 1994, Artistamp, 1971)
    • 217.85.213.254 is so motivated by bias against me that he unblushingly mixes lies with true or arguable material, and manipulates data to prove his point. I think clearly that if an analysis of my contributions is to be done it should include all my contributions, not just the last hundred. If 217.85.213.254 wanted to say "within the period x Boyer has focused mainly on writing or editing articles relating to himself," that would be one thing. But he has a tendency to make categorical statements when he is just talking about a tendency, sweeping generalisations founded on only a partial analysis. Rather than retreat or apology from his overblown statements, he continues to justify them as "for the most part" even if they have been shown to be incorrect. Moreover, in what 217.85.213.254 describes as "relating to himself" there is a range of the closeness of the relationship, and when he finds "Internet in art" and "Echo poem" to be related to me, articles in which I am nowhere mentioned or alluded to about subjects clearly invented by others and in which I am not mentioned because my participation in those fields is not worth mentioning, articles which in no way depend for their inclusion on my beyond-negligible importance in them, however obliquely, it seems that the motivation comes from an axe to grind rather than any legitimate complaint. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • 10 trivial contributions (minor edits or stubs) not obviously related to himself (Deadly force, Fred Rogers, Ile Philippaux, Anti-psychiatry, Private express statutes, Cancellation, Postmark, Lumitalo, Conch Republic, Stencil)
    • Again, 217.85.213.254 resorts to mischaracterizations, at least of a part of his case. An overall study of my contributions to anti-psychiatry (look at the page history) will show that they are substantial. The same goes for cancellation. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:37 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Thus, "mainly" is correct.

---

Reference to number of modifications made to Wikipedia

I don't like the version that says he's made over 1000 modifications. It makes it sound like this article is here out of gratitude. -- Tim Starling 23:51 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with this. It is correct to not have this mentioned in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)