User talk:24.168.92.117

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm not sure what you're doing, but your edit removed ALL external links from Surrealism, so I undid it. It's perhaps a good idea, if you really want to contribute, to describe what you're doing in the edit summary. Wyllium 17:48, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edits to Surrealism article

You repeatedly edit Surrealism to give pro-Dali POV, minimize significance of present surrealist groups and give undue significance to Keith Wigdor (if he is significant enough to mention at all, which I would dispute, you would have to mention the bitter denunciations of him by surrealists and surrealist groups, and the extreme controversy his conduct, or his alleged conduct, have provoked). Please refrain from reverting surrealism to do this again unless you are willing to explain your reason for doing so. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The distorted version of surrealism on this page is biased and self-serving to the very limited few people who try to monopolize this movement. First, Salvador Dali's contributions to surrealism do not have to be undermined by those with personal grudges against his success. Andre Breton even admitted in his own words in an interview (carefully scripted) with Andre Parinaud from the book,"CONVERSTAIONS; The Autobiography of Surrealism" that nobody, not even Dali, gets expelled or kicked out of the movement, they just leave on their own accord. Also, Can anyone prove that the Rosemont's, Franklin and Penelope, even met Andre Breton back in the early 1960's? I am not doubting the truth in that fact if it happened, (if that is historical fact), but why are there not any photographs of Franklin and his wife Penelope WITH Breton? If I ever had to opportunity to meet this great man,Andre Breton, I would certainly document it in a photograph. We can all agree that Andre Breton really was not camera shy? Their are countless pictures of Andre Breton throughout the years of his life with many members and fellow travellers in the movement, so why don't the Rosemonts make any available pictures of them with Breton public? Or have they? If there are any pictures of Franklin and Penelope with Andre Breton, where can we find them? That is obviously a very important factor to anyone who is interested in the relationship that the Rosemonts had with Breton, according to what they say? Daniel, did the Rosemonts ever SHOW you any pictures of them with Breton? Can we all see them if they exist? If there are no pictures of them with Breton, how do we know they they ever met Breton face to face? Are their any letters that we can read? That would be nice to add to this page. Daniel, I see that you like to present your version of surrealist history. The Chicago Surrealist Group pulled their website offline. Why? Also, Daniel, it would be fair to the public, if you and your friends would stop trying to monopolize surrealism.

[edit] Surrealism talk page

The surrealism article here is contentious and has been for some time. While I agree with much of the substance of what you say, I am going to delete your comments at Talk:Surrealism, because they amount to unsubstantiated allegations about Boyer and cannot stand.

Many of us here at Wikipedia would like to see the Surrealism article improve. Please help improve it by:

  • choosing a user name and logging in when you make your edits so we can better communicate with you
  • suggesting improvements or alternate text for the article without attacking Boyer
  • avoiding replacing one form of questionable content (e.g. references to the Chicago Surrealist Group) with another (e.g. Wigdor).

Best wishes

UninvitedCompany 20:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On what basis would anyone even suggest that the Chicago Surrealist Group is questionable content? It is the most active surrealist group in the world today. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can see (and the rest of the Internet),there is no website for this, "Chicago Group". Also, to claim that they are the most active group today is invalid. There is no proof of their activity, only heresay.
The Surrealist Movement in the United States has a new URL: http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your initial statement betrays a bizarre implication you are making: that in order for something to exist, it must have a website. And despite the claim that "Googling" (though it does have its place) is used here as a mere heuristic, it is my belief that it has assumed too much importance, with what Google brings up (as a subset of what is "online", as if there are not very significant offline sources on almost any given subject) de facto regarded as the final word on something; I am afraid that Wikipedia is risking becoming a mere regurgitation of Google. Nonetheless, let me take as not disingenuous your statement that "[t]here is no proof of their activity, only heresay."
A good place to start is the book Surrealist Subversions (in the interests of full disclosure, I have two articles, a contribution to the games section and a drawing in this book); members of the Chicago Surrealist Group contributed quite a bit to this. You can see a listing on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1570271224/qid=1086292687/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-1992814-7110312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . See also an auction catalogue selling several publications involving the Chicago Surrealist Group or its members, the special surrealist edition of Race Traitor, the review of the Surrealism Here and Now! exhibition at the Heartland Cafe in Chicago, an interview with Penelope Rosemont in Exquisite Corpse: A Journal of Letters and Life, Surrealist Subversions reviewed in The Confluence, http://www.akuk.com/mainpage.php?ThisSub=27, http://www.koekjes.net/cgi-bin/gastenboek/bekijken.pl?Surboek, http://www.processedworld.com/Issues/issue30/i30toc.html, http://www.digihitch.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=454, http://www.zazie.at/Friends/MainLinks.html, http://www.obsolete.com/ak/distribution/surrealism.html, &c., &c., &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel Boyer, How much for The Chicago Group Lot at that auction site? Also, how much money is Ron's book(Surrealist Subversions) selling for? I read the book Rosemont edited, "WHAT IS SURREALISM" the one published by Pathfinder (a lot of Communist literature they like to sell as I noticed from the back of the book), but I did not see any pictures of Franklin and his lovely wife Penelope With ANDRE BRETON! Daniel, Can you do us all here a huge solid favor? This is not much to ask, since you are so generous with very important information and links (though I can live without the coconut site). Daniel, can YOU please LEAD US All to where to go find any PICTURES of Franklin and Penelope WITH BRETON when they visited him in the 1960's. Was it 1962,1963,1964, or 1965 when Franklin and Penelope met Breton? I forgot. I think I remember reading Penelope's interview at the link you mentioned above, the one where they had a problem in Great Britain, thinking that they would be detained there and not let into France. Anyway, Daniel, PLEASE, (I am begging you), to PLEASE put a LINK here on Wikipedia to the PICTURE of FRANKLIN and PENELOPE WITH ANDRE BRETON! If You can do that, then you are helping us all! I am dying to see the picture of Franklin and Penelope with Andre Breton! I can't wait to see it! Quote from Penelope, "ROSEMONT: We had no idea. And if we had stayed in London as planned, we would have missed it. As it was, we ended up going to the Surrealist Group's New Year's Eve party. We also went to the cafe and met many surrealists who were in town for the exhibition. And of course we were able to meet with André and Elisa Breton, and we became good friends with many members of the group. It was really a wonderful time to be there. I'm so grateful that by chance those stuffy English authorities decided they didn't want us in England!" exact quote by the good lady Mrs. Rosemont. Now let us examine this with the tools of Statement Analysis and lets do some investigating to see some coherent and fluid, "facts" in this historic meeting. Oh, by the way, I am dying to see the picture of Frankline and Penelope with Breton! After all if you were SO Fortunate to have ever the chance to meet your hero and role model and be FACE to FACE with him and his wife, You would have a picture. Daniel, I can't wait to see the picture!


The evidence shows that the Chicago Group does not exist.
What positive evidence disproves the existence of the Chicago Group? Are you willing to provide this evidence based on one constant standard, without repeatedly shifting the grounds of your argument? I say this because when I tried to get a stipulation on the group existing during a certain period, you immediately proceeded to the group not currently existing. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nothing exists on the internet that shows there is any current activity in this group.
No website, nothing! Also the Rosemonts never met Breton, there would be a picture. Cased closed or it can be reopened if we see evidence. Until there is new evidence, then we can see. No website, no pictures of the Rosemonts with Breton when they, "met" him, (as they allege) and no current activity by this group. I doubt they ever existed in any real capacity to begin with. Who or what entities recognize these people anyway?


"The Chicago Surrealist Group had been a defiant presence in the Windy City for nine years," writes Sakolsky, a pirate radio expert. The record will show that a, "pirate radio expert" does recogize this group! Bugs Bunny will be appearing next as Daniel C.Boyer's next expert witness to support his case. In case anyone did not know, Bugs Bunny is considered, "surrealist" according to this Chicago group. Remember folks, Daniel C.Boyer is a surrealist and this is the best that he can come up with, still no pictures of Franklin and his wife Penelope with Breton, nor any link for this Chicago group, because they really do not exist, unless Bugs can verify any facts. By the way, if you carefully read Penelope's interview with Postel, that she gave on the link that Boyer provided, you can see there are many red flags and flaws (existing doubt) in what she says. How can you go to Paris really wanting to meet Breton and the Paris group of surrealists, yet not know what to expect? What happened to their stay in Great Britain? Penelope states, her and her husband wanted to stay for a while in Great Britain before going on to France. Did they stay long enough in Great Britain to brush up on their French? Please go read that interview she gave with that man, Postel. Did they know anyone in the Paris group before they went to Paris? Where did they exactly meet the greatest living poet and surrealist of the 20th century, Andre Breton? The man responsible for surrealism's first manifesto. Why no pictures? Why does Penelope state that they did not know what to expect when they reached Paris? Again, any pictures of Breton with the Rosemonts? ROSEMONT: This was 1964-65. At that time, the original Surrealist Group still existed in Paris and Andre Breton was still alive. I decided to pack up all my things, drop out of school, leave my apartment and go to Paris. Franklin and I got together all the money we possibly could and, at the end of December 1965, left for Paris. We had no idea what to expect. We went via London. We hoped to stay in London for a brief time and brush up on our French before going on to Paris. But the immigration officials in London did not like our looks. They hated our one-way ticket. For some reason they thought this was extremely suspicious. They were also suspicious of the fact that we had money in the form of cash and travelers' checks. They seemed to think we had either robbed a bank or that we were emigrating to England. So we ended up in their detention department. They told us that next day they were sending us back to New York. But after much arguing, and paying for a return ticket, they let us go on to Paris. It was a dramatic scene: they drove the limousine right onto the airfield and put us on the plane, but our passports were not returned until the plane was off the ground. They were sure we would jump off the plane and run to London! When we landed in France we were shaken up, thinking the same thing might happen again and that we'd end up back in New York. But no, the French waved us right through. And when we arrived in Paris, we discovered that Breton's book Surrealism and Painting was in the window of every bookstore and gallery. It had just come out. We found a little hotel through Europe on $5 a Day. (The hotel was actually $3 a day.) And about two blocks from the hotel the surrealists were holding an international surrealist exhibition.

POSTEL: You hadn't heard this would be taking place? ROSEMONT: We had no idea. And if we had stayed in London as planned, we would have missed it. As it was, we ended up going to the Surrealist Group's New Year's Eve party. We also went to the cafe and met many surrealists who were in town for the exhibition. And of course we were able to meet with André and Elisa Breton, and we became good friends with many members of the group. It was really a wonderful time to be there. I'm so grateful that by chance those stuffy English authorities decided they didn't want us in England!

[edit] List of surrealist poets

    • Anyone has the "right" to edit pages, but that right should be used responsibly. You deleted:
      • Franklin Rosemont - yet she is credited with surrealist poems on her Wikipedia page. On what basis do you claim she is not a SP?
      • Penelope Rosemont - Ditto
      • Mary Low - pops up all over the place, try [1] [2] [3] &c &c.

Dear Tagishsimon,Franklin is not a she. Franklin is a He. Your post indicates a total lack of clarity.

    • All of these people appear to be surrealist poems. You are, with a ladle of scorn which just makes you look more foolish, are deleting them: your deletions in the face of google and other wikipedia hits are just not credible. --Tagishsimon
  • Dear Tagishsimon, Please show the same responsibility when you post. You are engaging in a personal attack as far as I am concerned. In regards to Eric Bragg, anyone can get their chapbooks and books posted and linked on to Amazon.com (and reviewed online) and Eric is not a surrealist nor surrealist poet, as far as I am concerned. Tagishsimon, you seem to ignore the internet website attack by Eric Bragg against Keith Wigdor! Your cold response indicates a bias to Keith as far as I am concerned! Did you see what Eric Bragg does to Keith online? Don't you think that would warrant some kind of response to defend Keith? Tagishsimon, I have to delete this Eric Bragg link on here, until Eric Bragg decides to remove the libel and harrassment against Keith Wigdor from his website and get the surrealcoconut links off of Wikipedia. Tagishsimon, you would not like people taking your picture and then mainpulating it in Photoshop to harrass you online and Eric is way out of line! Nothing justifies his actions online and he does not belong on Wikipedia Articles! I would agree to Eric having a User Page, but he is not a surrealist poet and this is my right of free speech in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, the same that I can defend my case as well you can your's. I have rights too, as do you. Please stop attacking my posts. To show good faith, I will consider Mary Low a Surrealist Poet, but I still have my doubts on her established surrealist activity. In the meantime, please show some discretion towards good faith to these posts as well. Also, Tagishsimon,please refrain from namecalling attacks, we all have rights and fair is fair. Peace to you my friend.
    • Eric is not a surrealist nor surrealist poet, as far as I am concerned is at the root of the problem, isn;t it. You *really* don;t like what he's doing, much, do you. But, arguably, that does not stop him being a surrealist poet. If his publishers,http://www.iuniverse.com/ & reviewer think he is (and they tend to know about such categorisations) then is it really fair to let your distaste for him or his actions prevent what would otherwise appear a legitimate listing on the List of page? A quick set of references might include: [4] [5] [6]. At the end of the day, that is what NPOV is about, non? And why attacks on NPOV are construed as valdalism. --Tagishsimon

Dear Tagishsimon, There is no credible proof outside of Eric and his vested self-interest with this publisher (to make sales) on him being a surrealist poet. What other titles does he have as well? Painter, Author,Poet,etc.etc? Your labeling my posts as, "NPOV" is just unfair as indicated by your cold response. Also, I do not see any credible poet(or writer) that has demonstrated the unjust libel and harrassment against Keith by Eric, again this has nothing to do with him being removed from the page. I had to delete Dan Boyer's post (it is not an attack) when Dan stated it was satire, which just fuels the fire. I did show good faith and proper conduct as I have always here,whether you agree with me or not, but I never attacked your posts or you as you did to me. Dear Tagishsimon and all, I would support a User Page for Eric Bragg on here, but no article on him as a surrealist poet because he is not. A User Page for Eric where he can claim title to anything. By the way, Tagishsimon,please refrain from attacking me and my posts, I never (not once) did it to you. As far as Eric Bragg is concerned, I have no problem with him. I do have an issue with his actions online against other artists (500 to be exact). Dear Tagishsimon, Eric's publisher is,http://www.iuniverse.com/ where anyone can pay this company to have themselves published. You pay them to publish your work. non

In fairness to Keith Wigdor and this article, you claim to address a reason for Request for Comment to allow attacks against Keith Wigdor by applying too much favoritism to the good gentlemen Mr. Boyer. Please be fair. Am I wrong?

(I assume the above is addressed to me, though since my comment was removed it's rather hard to tell.) I know little about the specifics of the dispute over Surrealism, though having skimmed through the talk page I can tell that there is a dispute, that Keith Wigdor (whoever he is) is at issue in that dispute, and that little progress is being made—therefore a request for comment on the article is warranted.
If you think that the presentation of the dispute on (Wikipedia:Requests for comment) is unfair, feel free to reword it in a more neutral fashion; however, do not remove it until the dispute is resolved. I will consider such actions to be simple vandalism and thus deserving of a temporary block. —No-One Jones 20:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Mirv(NoOneJones), Please read your exact words from above,"I know little about the specifics of the dispute over Surrealism," and then you end your point with this conclusion, "therefore a request for comment on the article is warranted". Mirv, I am begging you to please consider your actions to call upon a temporary block when your exact words Indicate that, "I know little about the specifics of the dispute over Surrealism". So, how can you be fair and possess the clarity to dispute the contributions of Keith Wigdor or Dan Boyer (or any surrealists) when your exact words are, "I know little about the specifics of the dispute over Surrealism", and then you mandate the following, "If you think that the presentation of the dispute on (Wikipedia:Requests for comment) is unfair, feel free to reword it in a more neutral fashion". Mirv, I am begging you to read your exact words again here, since you are ordering me to reword my words in a neutral fashion, yet you admit to, ""I know little about the specifics of the dispute over Surrealism". I feel a lynching coming on in an attempt at a witch hunt with me being the "witch".
Let the record show that Dan edited the Request for Comments upon me asking for arbitration for closure.
You never asked for abitration. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did ask for arbitration when I posted my request for arbitration to everyone at the Request for Comments page! Daniel, stop trying to monopolize the good faith request for closure. You want to control everything here in regards to Surrealism for you and your friends. Let the Wikipedia Community decide on whether my request for arbitration should be approved and they will take it from there!


This is my request for arbitration and I will prove to you all my good faith as I already have done by stating that I will not delete and remove the Request For Comment. This is what I am asking for and this will be my case as it is only fair and proper for closure: * Talk:Surrealism - what is the importance of Keith Wigdor (what is Surrealism 2003?), Daniel C.Boyer (does Daniel have too many articles posted in Surrealism and its related pages as a vested self-interest), Evi Moechel(Zazie, is she a cyberartist or surrealist?),Eric W.Bragg (is Eric a surrealist poet?),Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (did they meet Andre Breton as they allege and where is the proof of that meeting?) to surrealism;
I think that the question of what the importance of Daniel C. Boyer to surrealism is should be removed from request for comment as I never claimed to have any sort of importance to the subject of surrealism in general and certainly do not think that I warrant any mention in the Surrealism article. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Daniel, Dan, my friend, Your presence is literally all over the Wikipedia's Surrealist articles. Your contributions as an authority on Surrealism and its current state and also its history is all over Wikipedia.
Someone who contributes a lot to an article about a particular subject, or to many articles about one subject, does not thereby state that he is important in the history of that subject, or has a great deal of significance as regards that subject. And I would be the last one to say this as regards myself and surrealism. Be serious! This is stunningly nonsensical. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You passionately defend Surrealism and the question concerning your importance to surrealism stays, since Keith is only mentioned on just one page, where you and your friends are literally on Every single surrealist article in Wikipedia.
This is flatly untrue. Neither myself nor any of my friends are mentioned in Les Champs Magnetiques, surrealist games, What is Wrong With This Picture?, Surrealist automatism, surautomatism, fumage, Gherasim Luca, or Marcel Mariën. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yes they are!
Where? Give me exact cites. Though now would be a good time to establish what you mean by my "friends". Does it include people who died before I was even born? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dan, fair is fair, if you want this one man off Wikipedia,
You are systematically misrepresenting my position. I never wrote anything of the kind. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do not post on here to represent your position or to misrepresent your position because you are deliberately misleading the Wikipedia Community with way too many substantial gaps and an obvious vested self-interest for you and your friends! Show a picture of the Rosemonts with Breton and I will support all your claims!
why can't you agree to arbitration? A simple photo of the Rosemonts with Breton will prove everything you claim and everything you stand up for. Dan, please just show the picture of the Rosemonts with Breton.

[edit] Massive reversion

I have noticed that almost all of your recent contributions have been reverts. These are not helpful and in this case are very disruptive. Please make useful edits to the current revisions and discuss why you have a problem with the article. If you continue to revert these articles, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Guanaco 22:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Guanaco, I have done that. You provide no direct revisions that I have made to back up your allegation. You also provide no information nor effort to help assist this discussion regrading Surrealism, except to block me. I disagree with your attempt at corrective measures. I am following the rules and I can prove all my revisions with good faith as I have done. You are ready to hang me without giving me any due process. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship as I can see, but a democratic process open to the public to engage in this service and what it provides. My only concern with the Wikipedia servive is to Maintain the Integrity of Surrealism and make sure that it is not unfairly misrepresented by Dan Boyer and his friends with way too many unsubstantiated claims and gaps in presented information by the good gentlemen Daniel Boyer. Your feedback to my revisions is not presented in good faith but an attempt to shut me up and I ask you to please be fair. If you read the Edit Summaries on the revisions that I have made in the Surrealism and all its related pages, I have stated my reasons and discussed the issue in the Edit Summary. You want me out as I can see it and that is not fair. My contributions to the Wikipedia Community are in regard to maintaining a credible source of integrity for the public when they research this great movement. Please do not violate my rights as granted by the Wikipedia Service. You claim that I make too many revisions. Well, all the revision edits are in the Surrealism and its related pages and I discussed my objections in good faith, which you are deliberately ignoring as evident by your attempt to shut me up. Please be fair to me as I am fair to you, sir. Plus, I requested a good faith effort at closure on my objections to Dan. Please be fair, sir. I have rights and so do you. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion and Surrealism before blocking me.

I believe that Guanaco is trying to warn you that your reverts on many articles specifically targetting a contributor in good standing will be seen as vandalism. He is requesting that you try to work with the community rather than engage in revert wars that do not improve Wikipedia. Consider changing your methods and attempt to compromise to avoid problems. - Tεxτurε 19:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Texture, I accept your advice and I also accept Guanaco's warning with a sincere understanding that the Surrealism (and it's related pages) achieve closure for the benefit of the entire Wikipedia Community and the world (who will research this great movement on here)so we can move on. However, I beg of you Texture (and Guanaco) that the same must apply to the good gentlemen Mr. Daniel C.Boyer, who has made as many revisions as I have, in regards to my revising Surrealist Pages on here for the benefit of Facts. Texture, I communicate this to you with a warm heart and sincerity, when I say that I am not hear to attack the good gentlemen Daniel C.Boyer. If you read the pages that the both of us have posted on, I do offer positive feedback on Dan's artwork, which I think is great. Dan is a great experimental artist, in the Avant Garde, he is very creative and unique. Also, I am not going to debate his standing within the Wikipedia Community, because I know that the good gentlemen, Daniel C. Boyer is in good standing here and that I will never challenge. Texture (and Guanaco, all anyone who reads this post), what I do challenge is the misrepresentation of Surrealism and the abuse of any vested self-interests of people who intend to cash in on this great movement, which already has been exploited and abused on all sides, from within by its own members, along with some entrepenuers(hope I spelled this right) as well. Texture, Please allow me to clarify my postion on this matter regarding my revisions. There is no evidence to back up the allegation that the good lady Penelope Rosemont ever met Andre Breton and that is a serious statement to make when you base your entire career upon a false story as, "meeting Breton and being welcomed into Surrealism by Breton". Texture, in good faith to the entire Wikipedia Community and to the people that use the pages on here for research purposes (college papers, etc), the information that the good gentlemen Daniel C.Boyer has posted on the many pages of Surrealist information on Wikipedia are full of too many substantial gaps and misleading information that is certainly void of solid and historic fact, as for example one of the most obvious falsehoods regarding the Rosemonts and their claims of meeting Breton. Texture, I know (and I hope that you and Guanaco and all here know) that there is no picture or any handwritten letters or communications written by Andre Breton to the Rosemonts anywhere, they just do not exist. The reason is simple, the Rosemonts (who are friends of Dan) never met Breton and they are basing their entire careers (in the arts and in revolutionary press as well) on a fake story. Ever wonder why there are no major historic Surrealist Retrospectives that show any pictures of the Rosemonts with Breton? How about sending an E-mail to Breton's autobiographer Mark Pollizitti? There is no mention of the Rosemonts anywhere in the book, "REVOLUTION OF THE MIND" (or am I wrong? I asked this of Dan and as usual he refuses to answer, because he knows I am right). Also, the obvious vested self-interests of Dan's friends in the arts (the ones that stake a claim to Surrealism) are exhibiting artists that are in the business of selling you their art, as does Dan. I ask of Daniel C.Boyer: Dan, have you ever advertised to sell your art in the SALVADOR DALI COLLECTOR'S MAGAZINE? I ask of Dan, if he sells any of his surrealist art on boxer shorts or shower curtains, let alone stamps as well? Anyway, the moment that Keith Wigdor's name appeared on Wikipedia,Dan went after him and Keith is only on one page. Dan is all over the place and I am just debating the issues of Dan's posting too many unsubstantiated gaps on to the Wikipedia's Surrealist pages with too much of a vested self-interest for him and his friends. I would love to see an Article in the Surrealism Pages for Terrance Lindall and his Surrealist Manifesto. I also would love to see any articles on the WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP who are the real surrealists with a proven historic record of their activites and exhibitions as well. There is nothing valid in regards to Dan's friends the CHICAGO GROUP because they do not exist and any information on them concering their late 60's activity is to be met with some kind of postive cyncism, because I just do not believe Franklin and Penelope and Dan as well. Texture, Peace to you and Guanaco and Dan as well! PEACE!

[edit] Talk pages

NEVER delete or modify other people's comments from Talk pages. You can be blocked for doing it. RickK 22:42, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dan Boyer does it to me! I have rights to defend my position! The Administrator agreed to closure on the topic! You are violating my rights! There is no excuse for allowing slander on these pages, I would not like to happen to Dan or me, we all have rights! You come in here like a bully! Stop!

I would like you to detail where I modified other people's comments from the talk pages. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Surrealist techniques

Such a general discussion of one "surrealist" (as Keith Wigdor) is out of place on the Surrealist techniques page. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GPMS site as "spam"

Would you please explain why you describe the GPMS site as "spam"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dan, they are in the business of selling issues, literature and other publications relating to surrealism, as indicated by the price of 15 euros, which you can see on their home page. Placing their link on to Wikipedia is spam, as I see it, since they will benefit from any sales made by people going to their site and making a purchase, or I am wrong? If you successfully refute me on this observation, I will thank you, since you would enlighten me to the facts and prove me wrong, which I do want to be proven wrong. I am trying to agree with you on this and other matters. The GPMS site is a spam, they sell.
Your use of the term "spam" is highly idiosyncratic, to say the least. "Spam" as a term originated with unsolicited e-mails sent to people to advertise, or get them to buy something; it was later extended in usage to irrelevant advertisements placed in Usenet and similar groups. A website cannot be "a spam" without stripping the term of practically all meaning. As I am not a member of GPMS (though my response to one of its inquiries is in a supplement, Ecoutons Voir, to S.U.RR 4) and do not derive any financial benefit from this link, and as it is undoubtedly relevant to the article on GPMS, you are way off base. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sure, Dan, whatever you say. Dan, who is this Enander? What did he do?
Where is "this Enander" mentioned in a Wikipedia article or Talk page? I'd be glad to discuss Enander with you if you e-mail me but unless you are considering including him in an article I think Talk pages would best be confined to the modification, and hopefully the improvement, of Wikipedia content. Enander hasn't been discussed so far, and unless he's going to be included in an article, I don't see where this will get us. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dear Daniel, That is Jonas Enander. The, "Paris Group" dedicated their last issue to him! Daniel, the front page of their last issue number 4 from last March! Why is it that I know this and you do not! I thought you were connected to these people(?), you know, the surrealists! Certainly, the information would be helpful to any Wikipedia article on Surrealism? right?
I'm perfectly well aware of this. I just wonder how you would propose integrating information (and what information would be included) into an article (and which article?) connected with surrealism? Or should there be an article on Jonas Enander? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dan, you already have the answer to your own question. I propose that an article page be built for this, "Paris Group" on Wikipedia, to Clarify their activity to the world, in Surrealism today, so that the Public can Research this new article and have the proper facts and information realting to this group and their comrade Enander. The connection is obvious, try to emphasize the protest and imprisonment of their comrade Enander as a surrealist struggle against the real forces of oppression. You can obtain the correct and proper information from your friends, so that the article can be built. This (or any information) would certainly be beneficial to any Surrealist Article, especially since the public needs to be informed on current surrealist activities and what is going on.
There already is an article on the Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste. If you want to integrate information about Enander (he was sentenced to two and one half years' imprisonment for taking part in the 2001 Gothenburg demonstration) into the GPMS article, go ahead. I'm not sure how one would proceed with this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.168.92.117.html"