User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, a huge compendium of all what was written on vfd, vandalism in progree and pump about Daniel C. Boyer and its articles.

Archives VFD **This page is useless**[edit]

VFD in april 2003 : creation of Daniel C. Boyer[edit]

Gate-crashing Daniel's user page, here is a discussion moved from VFD:

  • The Dead Man - article about a film by Daniel C. Boyer.
    • Err... I know this is supposed to be a "compendium of all human knowledge", but... surely not ALL human knowledge? Can I start an article about my cat (Isak the cat)? Graft
    • User:Sigg3.net seems to think he's for real. He asked on Daniel's talk page "Are you Daniel C. Boyer for real? Having made 'Dead man'?". He later wrote on his own website http://sigg3.net "First I couldn't believe it. I mean. How often do you accidently get in touch with celebrites throught the 'net?". However, material generated by Daniel himself, and by sigg3, were the only references to the film I could find in Google. Assuming sigg3 and Daniel are different people, I vote we keep it. -- Tim Starling 04:30 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've just been browsing Sigg3's website. There's no way Sigg3 is fabricated by Daniel. -- Tim Starling 04:44 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • "daniel c boyer" art 487 hits, "daniel boyer" art 179 hits, "daniel c boyer" film 97 hits, "isak the cat" 1 hit. -- Tim Starling 05:39 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • How about just asking me? A possible piece of evidence: compare the emphasis on design between Daniel's and my own webpage. If I'd been Daniel, or the other way around, both pages would probably have the same flaws and quality. No offence, of course.Sigg3.net
    • Yes, you have a very cool website, Sigg3. So does your band. -- Tim Starling 00:03 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but my band has been dead for 2 years now, but the music is still alive... (Buy our album!:) Sigg3.net


Here is the issue as I see it. We have to decide if Daniel C. Boyer is important enough for the main namespace. If he is, he should have a real Daniel Boyer article, and the various articles on his works should be allowed. Luckily, Daniel has so far shown the ability to write NPOV descriptions of his own work, which makes the issue a little simpler.

If Daniel is not important enough, the articles about his works should be moved to the user namespace. In my opinion, Daniel is important enough, judging by the fact that he has at least one fan (sigg3). After browsing the web, and reading his resume, I think he just scrapes in. This is essentially the Albertanism debate all over again, but with a user who is a bit more important (and likeable) than Albert Jacher. -- Tim Starling 04:29 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Okay Daniel, you've now got a real article. Let's see how long it lasts before someone deletes it. -- Tim Starling 05:10 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


See [above] and somewhere in the Village pump archive for my arguments as to why I think Daniel should have a non-redirect article in the main namespace. Readers please be aware: it is not normal practice for Wikipedia editors to have articles written about them. -- Tim Starling 05:08 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer and sister page[edit]

Okay, what's the deal with self-promotion and Daniel C. Boyer? He has written his own article about himself and created articles and linked from many articles whenever some piece of his art has the same name as something else. There also appears to be some amount of promotion a female with the same name, Allison Boyer (his wife or sister, perhaps?).

Allison Boyer is my sister. With the possible exception of her being listed under surrealist poets, in my opinion to say "there also appears to be some amount of promotion" of her is inaccurate as:
  • if it is legitimate to have an article on Idealist Press International, Ltd. at all, clearly it would be appropriate to mention that she was one of the original partners in it (I am making no argument about the Idealist Press International, Ltd. article in general here)
  • she did do the illustration for "Blair House" and so would have to be mentioned if this poster-poem is mentioned in Wikipedia (your argument seems to be against the inclusion of "Blair House" in this sense rather than the mention of Allison Boyer)
  • the same argument as above applies to Daniel C. Boyer.
    • --Daniel C. Boyer

    Daniel C. Boyer and children articles july[edit]

    Pages written by Daniel about himself and his personal projects: The Erotic Life of the Eskimo, Daniel C. Boyer, The Tailgating Spinster, List of visual artists, Idealist Press International, Ltd., Surrealist poets, Dead Man, Echo computer graphic, The Dead Man, International Union of Mail Artists, Donnelly, The Octopus Frets, and Surrealist Subversions.

    While it may be appropriate to call some of these my "personal projects," clearly for others it is a flat-out lie (Idealist Press International, Ltd., in which I started out as one of the limited partners and have at times served as President, CEO and CFO, but at any rate it is not merely one of my personal projects; International Union of Mail Artists, founded by someone else long before my involvement in it; and most ridiculous of all to call one of my personal projects, Surrealist Subversions, (which I note you did not look up on Amazon.com) in which I am just one of the contributors and it was edited and introduced by others. In my opinion a major surrealist anthology such as Surrealist Subversions hardly depends for its inclusion on my contribution). --Daniel C. Boyer
    I meant that I believe you added the Idealist Press International page not because there was demand for it, but because you were involved and they published or produced your products. -- Daniel Quinlan Thu Jul 10 02:12:35 PDT 2003
    You have not fully addressed my point, however, particularly with respect to Surrealist Subversions: the notion that it is my participation in it that moved me to add the page, and the more general idea that it without my participation (for which reason I so added it) it would not be in Wikipedia, are beyond ridiculous. Surrealist Subversions is a major anthology of obvious importance in the history of the Surrealist Movement in the United States, and that importance hardly stems from my contribution of two articles and a drawing. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Surrealist Subversions is perhaps the least objectionable of the pages. I'll leave leave it at that. I think most of the other pages would have been better placed on your own personal page. --Daniel Quinlan Fri Jul 11 13:56:36 PDT 2003


    Daniel C. Boyer and links to his articles july[edit]

    Pages where he has added references to his stuff which seem to vastly overinflate his relative importance in the world. I don't really have a grudge against the man, but these are really silly:

    I may have missed some stuff (he has also done some edits when not logged into his account). So, is it okay for people to use Wiki as advertising for themselves and their own works? -- Dan at 216.103.211.240

    Generally people aren't allowed to advertise their own works, but clearly there has to be a point where a person is famous enough to be in Wikipedia, and their being a Wikipedian shouldn't detract from that. We decided some time ago that Daniel Boyer is important enough. There are a handful of others in his position, but it is very rare. See User talk:Daniel C. Boyer. -- Tim Starling 05:58 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    It's clearly advertizing, especially for the latter list of places where he's added his stuff to pre-existing articles. I guarantee that nobody looking up Blair House is looking for his products. At the very least, I think some sort of reality check is needed. He has links for individual works of his whereas even extremely well known artists rarely get that treatment. If this stuff was listed on a personal page, I think it would be fine, it should even be sufficient for his ego, but putting it all over the place is clearly trying to generate traffic (again, especially for the latter list of real articles, the ficticious articles are not necessarily as bad). -- Dan at 216.103.211.240
    I don't understand your meaning opposing "real articles" to "fictitious articles". --Daniel C. Boyer
    "real" meaning "Of or founded on practical matters and concerns", "Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious", etc. "fictitious" was perhaps the wrong word to use, but my point was that there would be little or no demand for the articles outside of your own desire to create them. -- Daniel Quinlan Thu Jul 10 02:12:35 PDT 2003
    You can remove references to him in Blair House, 1994 in film, etc. at your discretion. Of course he should not appear more important than he really is due to his own self-promotion. But we decided that he's allowed in the main namespace, so you probably won't find much support for the deletion of articles such as Daniel C. Boyer or The Erotic Life of the Eskimo. You're welcome to try, of course -- you can list them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you feel strongly about it, but be aware that we have discussed this issue before. -- Tim Starling 14:13 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Works for me. -- Daniel Quinlan Thu Jul 10 02:12:35 PDT 2003

    Daniel C. Boyer and children articles july[edit]

    1. List of visual artists is a one line list and should be listed on pages needing attention.
    2. The Erotic Life of the Eskimo, The Tailgating Spinster, The Dead Man, Echo computer graphic, Donnelly, The Octopus Frets - these seem to be personal projects, and could be usefully merged and redirected here in an anti-stub approach.
    3. That leaves Dead Man, Idealist Press International, Ltd., and Surrealist Subversions.

    Assuming no objections, I'll do the merges I suggest for point (2). Martin 12:54 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    What do you mean by "an anti-stub approach"? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:15 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Stubs are bad. Where stubs can be killed by use of redirection, this is often a good thing, particularly where the stub entries are on encyclopedically marginal topics, such as your poems, or the minor characters of the Simpsons. Martin
    I would like to point out that it is questionable to call The Octopus Frets article a stub. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:48 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    With some of these articles there seem to be some drawbacks to your procedure. Merging The Tailgating Spinster seems to leave no way to link the Korean article on the same topic. Could you either figure out a way to include the Korean link, or not merge the Spinster? Also, merging echo computer graphic seems forced -- the visual arts procedure is not as easily fit in to the article on me as my books and films, and might be more jarring to someone searching for it to see it just merged into Daniel C. Boyer. Could you please either not merge this or figure out some way to blend this more finely into the article on me? --Daniel C. Boyer 12:48 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    The Korean Tailgating Spinster can be merged with the Korean "Daniel C. Boyer". "Echo computer graphic" only gets 4 distinct google hits (3 of them on Wikipedia and one referring to it) so it can just be deleted. -- Tim Starling 13:41 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    [Totally unimportant note :] I get 7 google hits (6 from Wikipedia and one referring to it). --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    User:Daniel C. Boyer x 3, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion x 2, Echo x 1. The duplicates are just redirects. -- Tim Starling 14:27 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


    But there is no Korean "Daniel C. Boyer." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:11 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    The precedent in such cases is unclear. Probably the best approach would be to create a brief Korean author stub, and merge The Tailgating Spinster to that. Another possibility would be to remove the interlanguage link from ko: to en:, and create an essentially blank ko: author stub, saying only "this article does not yet exist in this language". -- Tim Starling 14:27 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    The merge you did on "Blair House" was badly done as it reduplicates information earlier in the article. I am going to fix this. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:54 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Right, now that we're all relatively happy, I'm going to remove the July 10th reference from VfD. Objections? Martin 09:59 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Daniel C. Boyer and children articles[edit]

    I think the issue brought up by the note at the bottom of Idealist Press International, Ltd. has already been dealt with. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:24 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Hmm. Is this page being redirected? I've got to say, it looks like the most dodgy of "your" pages - Google on "Idealist Press" doesn't exactly bring up much... Evercat 00:27 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    What I am getting from Talk:Daniel C. Boyer is that it is not being redirected. I do think that the definition of "my" pages has been stretched somewhat too far; while The Octopus Frets, The Tailgating Spinster, The Erotic Life of the Eskimo and The Dead Man can be called "my" pages when one gets into calling a company in which I was one of six, then one of four partners (later shareholders), in which Dee Rooney was at times President and Chairwoman (she is now President), in my opinion it is questionable. That people even got into calling Surrealist Subversions one of "my" pages when I contributed no more than 2% of a book that was conceived, edited, introduced and published completely by others, in my opinion, is shading into POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:36 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    But do you acknowledge that there's a problem with this page, which I think has 9 hits on Google, 7 of which are on Wikipedia? I particularly object to linking to pages like this from articles like List of American companies; the Google search suggests it is too minor a company to warrant being linked to from there...

    (in general, links to pages on minor subjects that make the subject look important are more irritating than the pages themselves...) Evercat 00:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    O.k. This question has been dealt with an in line with evolving standards I agree with it. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:28 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Moved from vfd, tests of relevance[edit]

    • Daniel C. Boyer - It seems quite clear to me (as it would most other users) that this article does not belong on the wikipedia. Daniel C. Boyer is not important enough (based on the tests we have used that resulted in the removal of many other articles) to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. It seems to me, that this page may have originally been his userpage, and then when the new user namespace was made, it wasn't totally removed? This page should be deleted, or made into a redirect. See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for more details. MB 18:16 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Could you please list to what "tests" you refer? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • The biggest test is to use google, and see how many hits it gets (people use this test ALL the time). If it doesn't get at least 2 or 3 pages of results, it's most likely not worthy of an article. Additionally, there is the purposed "1000-person" or "5000-person" guidelines, which while not policy, are a good idea. I doubt this article would pass a 100-person guidline. MB 18:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • Please explain the x-person guideline. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • It is still being finalized. you would probably have an interest in getting involved in it, since you think your page is an exception. I last saw it discussed on the Village Pump. MB 19:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
              • I get it; I may have been a bit dense. But in what way is "my page" (presumably you mean Daniel C. Boyer an exception? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • I just ran the google check, but if you look into the results, you'll see that these are mostly sites where Daniel has posted his works. Anyhow, I still don't think that Daniel C. Boyer is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. I don't think I am the only person who thinks that we shouldn't just put anything and everything in the wikipedia. MB 18:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • It is hard to measure the importance of a person, but more time could help. We may better leave the article here and reopen the issue five years later. During this five years, Daniel should better hand off the article, no matter how terrible it is, because it will hurt the objectivity of Wikipedia. If Daniel is really important enough, his supporters will come and make corrections so Daniel shouldn't worry. wshun 18:45 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • keep Daniel Boyer and Daniel C. Boyer and delete the 15th other ones. This is utterly ridiculous. User:anthere (my ! did not I just said this just above ? Why is this discussion taking place two times ?) (oh ! is not that the third conversation on Mr Boyer on this page ? Well, I don't know if he really is famous outside, but sure, you make his game discussing these ridiculous redirects over and over and over.
        • This was all very far from being my idea. And this third section on me on this page is to once again discuss deleting Daniel C. Boyer. It was my impression we'd already been through all this, but... --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • How to best spoil this page with making it 39 kb long !!!)
    • Daniel, I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, since I hadn't looked at any of your other contributions, but now that I have, it seems to me that this isn't a case of just a little honest discussion of oneself. This is shameless self-promotion! I thought intially that you would know better than to use wikipedia as a tool of self promotion, but your edit history proved me wrong. And then I had a look at what linked to Daniel C. Boyer. What the hell! This is ridiculous! Please everyone who has supported keeping this article around, have a look at the number of articles he has added himself to, and the number of articles he has created about himself. It is astronomical! MB 19:50 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • The fact that the existence of certain articles may be inappropriate doesn't have any bearing on the existence of other articles. This is a completely ridiculous argument. If an article shouldn't exist, list it here on its own merits and state the reason or reasons you think it should be deleted. If Daniel C. Boyer is biased, either for or against me, if the bias is in my contributions thereto or in the contributions of others, list it under NPOV dispute. But this idea again, where evaluations of one article is based on evaluations of others, is completely illegitimate and ridiculous.
        • you couldn't be more wrong, it does have bearing on the situation, b/c from what I can tell, Daniel C. Boyer has a previously undocumented history of creating articles about himself. People are assuming that this is the only such article, and therefor it should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately, this isn't true. There are a huge number of articles involving Daniel C. Boyer, and he has spent far too much time working on them.
          • I strongly disagree. If the reason that Daniel C. Boyer continues to exist as an article is that people believed it to be the only article touching on something to do with me that I created or worked on, it should obviously be deleted, even if this information were true. Daniel C. Boyer should be evaluated (what its value is, how it should be edited, whether it should be deleted) on the same basis as any other article. Calling the history "undocumented" is beyond ridiculous as my user contributions can be easily seen by anyone who chooses to do so. And as to how much time I've spent working on anything, it's none of your or anyone else's business. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:40 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Before I knew this information, I really had no problem besides it not being the type of article that you would see in an encyclopedia (which I still believe). Now that I have discovered what has really been going on, I think it is an important consideration in this case. MB 21:08 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Let me explain my point with a very exaggerated example. If an article was created about Winston Churchill's nose hair, this be a worthless article but would in no sense affect the significance of Winston Churchill. (Note: I am not trying to make any point beyond the very surface point this makes.) --Daniel C. Boyer 20:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • It's all been done (woo hoo hoo), it's all been done (woo hoo hoo), it's all been done... before. Can we please move all this to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer, where the google searches are already quoted, the nature of those links assessed, and people who have heard of Daniel outside of Wikipedia gave their testimony? -- Tim Starling 00:43 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Thanks. There are some other articles that I still think should be deleted, see below. Daniel Quinlan 00:55 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Authorship of redirect and children articles. Banning ?[edit]

    (Bit of an overview) As far as I (Daniel Quinlan 00:34 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)) can tell, every article about Daniel C. Boyer and his creations was created by User:Daniel C. Boyer. A few pages have been undeleted, resurrected, clarified, or moved by other users in attempts to resolve issues related to his self-aggrandizing content, but virtually all of the content originates by him. A few users know of him, but that does not excuse the self-aggrandizement and advertizing that he has done as a Wikipedia author. The problem is, at the moment, less severe than it was a few months ago, through the work of several other Wikipedia editors, but some problems remain:

    • Pages created for advertizing reasons so he could list himself in another place (fail to pass 1000- or 5000- person test):
      • Surrealist Subversions, International Union of Mail Artists, and Idealist Press International, Ltd.
        • It is perhaps true to say the Idealist Press International, Ltd. does not pass this test, but I think IUOMA does, and I would go so far as to say it is my belief that these continued complaints about "Surrealist Subversions," an extremely significant surrealist anthology and one of the most important books in the field of surrealism in the United States -- the persons who make this complaint can only be motivated by a vendetta. I will reiterate that the significance of this anthology has nothing to do with my contributions, and that I would have added this article even had I nothing to do with it. This is one of the points upon which I would like a response. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Finally, there are some other pages that are not as easy to find because they do not link back to him directly and/or because User:Daniel C. Boyer frequently edits self-aggrandizing content when he is not logged into Wikipedia.
      • An example is Fiji Island Mermaid Press, a company that sells his works (and perhaps others, but it is still advertizing) via ebay and perhaps elsewhere.
        • That you would say "perhaps others" is evidence of a bias against me. Let's stick to facts rather than disingenuous claims you know aren't true. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Just for you to know Daniel. I have been alone supporting your article on the french wiki. Everyone else wanted deletion. How can it happen that just me against the wish of everybody else succeed to keep it, I just don't know. But honest, I kinda regret it. I was aware it was promotion, but for an editor, I felt ready to ask for an exception. But all these redirects, the links you made (I saw you approaching these links on the fr wiki), sorry, but that is too far after the proper line. Anthère 01:03 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I don't regret my support for inclusion. Daniel Boyer has made me angry, just like he's made Daniel Quinlan and MB angry. He's abused the trust placed in him. But I think that's an argument in favour of banning, not deletion. BTW expect this entry to be moved to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. -- Tim Starling 01:29 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm actually not angry (maybe a tiny bit, but frustrated and disappointed would probably be more accurate, although I continue to be amused and stunned by Daniel C. Boyer's reactions and defense of his articles).
          • My defence, if you will actually look at it, doesn't relate to the validity of "my" articles so much as my insistence that the case against me consist of accurate and factual information. I have pointed out many places in which this is not the case.--Daniel C. Boyer 16:02 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm just being very persistent because even subtle forms of advertizing and aggrandizement (like redirects other examples cited above) need to stay off of Wikipedia and we need to be firm about it. Compromise will only make Wikipedia somewhat suspect (rather than completely suspect) as a source of reliable NPOV information. Daniel Boyer and Daniel C. Boyer should be deleted as violations of the advertizing policy and it should be left to someone other than User:Daniel C. Boyer to create an article about Daniel C. Boyer another day. That any of the above articles is permitted will only encourage other people to do the same. If you want to write about yourself (other than providing corrections, I suppose), Wikipedia is the wrong place. Wikipedia should not be a personal web page or e-commerce site. Daniel Quinlan 02:01 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • Other people can't do the same. Many others have tried. The original Daniel C. Boyer article was moved to the user namespace, just like so many others. For a user to be allowed in the article namespace, they have to have explicit community approval. Daniel was given that explicit approval. I don't care if others try to do the same, because their work will be swiftly removed. And I don't think Wikipedia will turn into a personal web page server, because the sentiment and policy against that has proven to be as strong as ever, in this case and others. -- Tim Starling 02:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress[edit]

    Self promotion and banning[edit]

    • Actual vandalism is taking place at Daniel C. Boyer, not merely disagreement but intentional pov and deragatory vandalism.
      • What vandalism? This was an absolutely factual edit. Boyer can write what he wants on his user page, but his article is for anyone to edit, not just himself.
    • Please either protect Daniel C. Boyer or ban the anon IP attacking it. Pizza Puzzle
      • Better ban Daniel C. Boyer. He spreads irrelevant articles about himself or his personal projects all over, while making no useful contributions. Example: Idealist Press International. Google search finds only Boyer's own Wikipedia articles: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22idealist+press+international. And he even listed this under "List of American companies"!
        • 217.85.213.254 has added very debatable POV information to Daniel C. Boyer and has even resorted to adding factual inaccuracies to any article with a tangential relationship to me, presumably motivated by some bias against me. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:08 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • The wiki isn't google. Pizza Puzzle
          • Exactly, it isn't Google. While you can find something about everything on Google, Wikipedia should restrict itself to those topics that are actually relevant. And if something is *not even* to be found on Google, then it *certainly* has no place on Wikipedia. Can I add my cat? Is any local town councillor relevant? The local bakery? This is making a mockery out of an encyclopaedia.
            • If it was an article on a bakery and the only content was its location and a pricelist, that would be an ad, not an article. If it was an article written by someone praising the wonderful taste of the bakery's bread, that wouldn't be a valid article on the grounds that it would be violating NPOV. If, however, that bakery had an interesting history (e.g. the oldest bakery in the state of Virginia), or was world-famous (e.g. this is Prince Charle's favorite bakery or, this bakery claims it invented the pretzel), or was a landmark of some sort, or had some unique claim to fame (e.g. a topless bakery), then an article about that bakery would be a valid addition to an encyclopedia.
            • We have been down this road before. While I am not making any argument on the significance of the article on me or any other article having some relationship to me (however tangential), I think that 217.85.213.254 should have to address the POV information he added to Daniel C. Boyer and the fact that his claim that Fiji Island Mermaid Press only sells books via e-Bay is simply false. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:22 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • Yes, I think the local bakery should be addable. The local bakery is quite good. Town councilmen should be addable, anyone who is the leader of thousands of people is obviously important enough for inclusion. Pizza Puzzle
            • Well, on http://www.fimp.net/ most products obviously link to their "acutions at eBay." They may sell other stuff directly, but apparently you can't get their stuff at regular bookshops. In any case, an insignificant fringe publisher which has no business in Wikipedia, at least no more than my local bakery or dry cleaner. Maybe we can some have more opinions on whether such irrelavancies in general should be included.
            • Why is it any of your business at all if Boyer has an article? What do you care? Pizza Puzzle
            • It's as much my business as yours. It's a wiki. If such self-promotion is allowed, it will devalue Wikipedia's content in general because you never know if something is mere self-promotion or not. If you read an encyclopaedia article about a person and it says he's an artist, you normally expect that he is a *recognized* artist and not an obscure wannabe.
    • Many others have been frowned upon, even banned for self-promotion. I list my personal business on my user page, but you would never see me writing an article about it in the wikipedia, b/c it's just wrong. I have a personal website, but I'm not going to write an article about myself. I agree with this user, even if they have gone about bring up this issue in the wrong way. Self promotion has no place in wikipedia (especially if one refuses to let others edit pages pertaining to them). I personally would not object if someone decided to add to the Daniel C. Boyer article something stating that Daniel is a wikipedia user, and that the article was written by him. It would put the article in perspective, and help avoid confusion. MB 22:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • First off, the article notes that he edits the wiki. Second off, the article wasn't written by Daniel C. Boyer - it was written by several users. Pizza Puzzle
        • I have nothing against Daniel, I think he is a good contributor, and he has lots of friends on the wikipedia, so of course, his article that he started about himself will never be deleted. I simply find it a conflict of interest for someone to create an article about themselves. It would have been 100% better IMO to have asked another of his friends to create the article. I frown upon anyone creating an article about themselves, no matter who it is. MB 00:06 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • I think you will find, for the record, that the current Daniel C. Boyer was created by Tim Starling (maniacal voice-over to Igor as speaker throws switch: "He's alive! He's alive!"). Though I did make modifications to this. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:14 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • Are you kidding? What do you mean, the "current article"? The page history shows clearly that you started the article (in the first person, no less: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Daniel_C._Boyer&oldid=99285 ). There has been controversy about it from the start, others deleted it, and in the course of this Tim Starling apparently as a compromise set up a stub based on your previous article. But subsequently you expanded it again up to its present size.
              • I think this is hilarious when obviously the main expansion is due to the merging into it of articles having to do with my works, which was hardly my idea. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:13 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • And the fact that you set 17 redirects to your article is sufficient proof of what your whole motivation is here. All your articles have to do with yourself - your individual works of art, your personal art techniques, your publishers, even your relatives. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium.
              • This is a lie. What individual work of art of mine has or ever had an article on it?
                • The Tailgating Spinster, Donnelly, etc. You just admitted it above: "I think this is hilarious when obviously the main expansion is due to the merging into it of articles having to do with my works" - who wrote those articles if not you?
                  • You keep shifting arguments and ducking some of my challenges. The Tailgating Spinster is a book, not an individual artwork. Donnelly is a cartoon, not an individual artwork. My point about the expansion of the length of Daniel C. Boyer is that the majority of this is the merging into it of separate articles, an idea which was not mine. You have to pick your argument? Is your argument about the existence of these articles, such as The Tailgating Spinster and The Octopus Frets? Is your argument about the length of Daniel C. Boyer? What exactly is the problem? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
              • Am I enjoined from writing an article on an art technique (an article which never mentions me or alludes to anything I am involved in) because I have ever used the technique? What about techniques such as form art, which I have never used even once? Are Shirley Allen, Fred Rogers, Franklin Rosemont, Eric Robert Rudolph and Edmond Yu my relatives? 217.85.208.17 is resorting to untruths and gross exaggerations, and it is hard to see any reason other than a bias against me why he would do this. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:13 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • (By 217.85.208.17)
              • A technical note; by default, if there are more than 50 edits, it shows the edit 50 edits ago as if it was the original article creation. It actually shows an anonymous ip creating the page, by blanking it, at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Daniel_C._Boyer&action=history&limit=500&offset=0. (Doesn't look like that's the first edit either, don't know what happened to it.) I find it a little unusual that the article is written in first person. כסיף Cyp 08:04 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
              • I think it went something like this: In Feb 2002, 141.219.44.92 created Daniel C. Boyer as a one sentence stub. In March 2002, it was moved to User:Daniel C. Boyer by user:Stephen Gilbert, by cutting, pasting and manually redirecting. Daniel expanded the user page. In April 2003, I replaced the redirect with a 5 sentence stub. Daniel then greatly expanded it, and started his campaign of increasing his visibility in Wikipedia by whatever means possible. I didn't realise the extent of what Daniel had been doing in the last couple of months until Daniel Quinlan brought it to our attention at the village pump. -- Tim Starling 08:51 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems quite clear to me (as it would most other users) that this article does not belong on the wikipedia. Daniel C. Boyer is not important enough (based on the tests we have used that resulted in the removal of many other articles) to have an article in an encyclopedia about him. It seems to me, that this page may have originally been his userpage, and then when the new user namespace was made, it wasn't totally removed? In anycase, I am going to put it on VfD, and hopefully this will resolve the issue. MB 18:05 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Would you please list either here or on talk or VfD to which tests you are referring and how the Daniel C. Boyer article does not meet them? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Other discussions[edit]

    Should User:Daniel C. Boyer and his works be allowed in the main namespace? See User talk:Daniel C. Boyer. -- Tim Starling 04:46 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

    Sorry to be dumb - but I don't see anything wrong. What is your complaint? Cgs
    I'm not complaining, I'm trying to inspire comments. I got into trouble about a month ago trying to get a user into the main namespace (everyone was against it), so now I'm asking the Wikipedia community, "what about this one"? -- Tim Starling 00:55 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
    Ah! Sorry - I thought you wanted to ban him (not allow him in the main namespace. Noob. Cgs

    I know that someone dropped by Daniel's page a while back and asked if he was the Daniel C. Boyer, so at least one person has heard of him outside of Wikipedia. Also, his articles are quite neutral. Another Wikipedian with articles about himself and his work is User:Sheldon Rampton (see Sheldon Rampton, PR Watch, Disinfopedia). I don't think there's any problem with Wikipedians having their own articles if they are noteworthy outside of Wikipedia; such articles simply have to be edited carefully for NPOV. -- Stephen Gilbert 02:52 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

    There's absolutely no reason an article on Boyer shouldn't exist in WikiPedia, no matter who wrote it. His article is well-written, informative, and appears neutral. The argument that you have to be 'famous' to be listed (who decides what 'famous' is?) or that the article has to be written by a third-party 'biographer' to be valid doesn't hold water and runs against the whole basic premise of WikiPedia. If I ever ran into Boyer's name in an art journal or the like and wanted to know more about him, I'd like to be able to turn to Wikipedia and find an entry on him. Forbidding such articles on Wikipedia would only serve to make Wikipedia a poor source of information in the long run. The fact that you can find alot of information on Wikipedia that other encyclopedias wouldn't touch is precisely why I think it may become a valuable resource to alot of people. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just a 3rd rate 'wannabe' encyclopedia, and why would anyone turn to that for information?

    Are you arguing that absolutely any person can have an article (and write it himself too)? If that's your argument, I think a consensus has already been established against this, and many articles on obscure people have been deleted before. If that's not your argument, you'll agree there has to be some standard. Of course you don't have to be "famous" (in the sense of "most people know you") but maybe at least 1,000 people should know you, or you can show at least one article about yourself in the mainstream press. I don't see how Boyer would meet any such standard.
    I have indicated over and over again how I do meet such a standard, but this has been ignored. Has there been any response, for instance, to the fact that I was mentioned in Brill's Content? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Out of ~103 Wikipedians, we have one definite Boyer fan. If we assume that Wikipedians are a random sample from a population of ~107 people, then it follows Boyer has ~104 fans. -- Tim Starling 14:27 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    A daring assumption, based on a single testimony. This is obviously far too easy to be artificially set up for it to be an acceptable standard.
    True. If we assume that Wikipedians are a random sample from a population, we're making really bad assumptions. Care to estimate what %ge of the population are male, using the same sample? Self selecting samples are a very bad idea. If Boyer had 10,000 fans, wouldn't 1 person beside himself have mentioned "Octopus Frets" on the web? Wouldn't his books be reviewed in more prestigious media than a fanzine run by a furniture store and his own college newspaper? I don't object to Boyer having a write up. I do object to any idea that he's not a total non-entity in the wider art world. (which is why I removed "highly controversial" and "widely praised", both self aggrandisement beyond his meagre influence. -- User:GWO
    User:GWO saying that the article ever said "widely praised" is a flat-out lie. Believing that an automatic work such as The Octopus Frets would ever be widely praised is laughably bizarre and I made no such claim. While not questioning many of the criticisms of myself in this debate, I think someone besides myself should be insisting that it be conducted on a factual basis, without these flagrant exaggerations and factual distortions and inaccuracies. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    Sorry, I misremembered. The phrase was "widely decried". But I had no problem with the praised or decried; it may well have been both praised and decried amid your coterie, but it wasn't widely anything. -- User:GWO
    "This is obviously far too easy to be artificially set up for it to be an acceptable standard."

    It's unlikely that it was artificially set up. Sigge was very convincing. I can't see any reason to doubt him. Read Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 1.

    "Care to estimate what %ge of the population are male, using the same sample?"

    Gender has no effect on an order of magnitude calculation. It is only a factor of two.

    You misunderstand. I'm merely observing that since wikipedians are very much predominately male, and the population is close to 50:50, it would be a very silly thing to suggest that wikipedians form a representative sample of the population. Which is true.
    "If Boyer had 10,000 fans, wouldn't 1 person beside himself have mentioned "Octopus Frets" on the web?"

    They're not that sort of fans. Sigge didn't mention his respect for Daniel Boyer publicly until he bumped into him on Wikipedia. Most fans are quiet.

    "Wouldn't his books be reviewed in more prestigious media than a fanzine run by a furniture store and his own college newspaper?"

    I didn't say he's popular or good at what he does, I'm just saying that enough people have heard of him to make it worth writing an article.

    There is little evidence of this, but I don't mind. I do object to the inference (which was in the original article plus the "19XX in movies" articles) that implied he was well known, important and influential. None of this is true.

    Anyway, you're free to argue down my numbers. You'll notice that I'm already assuming correlations between Boyerites and Wikipedians by using a reduced population: 107 instead of 109. I have a couple of orders of magnitude clearance before it gets down to a good argument for deletion, so I'm not particularly worried.

    But you overlook too many other features, such as method of selection, that invalidates "wikipedians" as a sample for pretty much any kind of statistical estimates. Really. It would certainly overestimate "people aware of slashdot", or "libertarians" or "esperanto speakers" by far more than a couple of orders of magnitude... And scaling up a single data point ... yuck. I'm glad you never took my statistics course. -- User:GWO

    -- Tim Starling 04:38 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Archive&oldid=91300013"