User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 6

Sable
How do we know that black on red is regarded as a "color-on-color violation" in central Europe? You haven't presented any evidence that this is the case. AnonMoos 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You should link to your talk page archives from your current user talk page... AnonMoos 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jack Laity
An editor has nominated Jack Laity, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis
Hello. Does Minneapolis, Minnesota look all right to you? Please pardon this form letter that is going to about a dozen people whose user name I recognize from some Wikipedia edit (could have been recent or in the past year). I expect to close peer review by nominating Minneapolis to featured article candidate in a day or two unless other editors have more work they'd like to do. In case the links help, places to make a difference are to edit in place, comment in the peer review, comment on the talk page, support or oppose when and if it gets to featured article candidate, or work on a child article linked from the following template. -Susanlesch 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zazzle links on Houghton, Michigan
Hi, Daniel. I noticed that you added some links to your Zazzle stamps on the Houghton, Michigan article today using the IP address 141.219.44.104. The diff in question is. As I've noted before on your talk page, these self-promotional links are considered spam. Please don't add them again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure 141.219.44.104 isn't a computer I've used. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel. I couldn't help but notice that the links to your stamps were added to the Houghton, Michigan article once more, this time by User:70.227.108.38. No doubt you will say that you didn't use this computer either. If so, I suggest that you find the person who's editing from the Cyberia Café and ask him/her to stop adding the Zazzle links. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't stake out Cyberia Café 24/7 and monitor what people type on the computers there -- there are three and I'm not sure which one is 70.227.108.38 if indeed one of them is. This is ridiculous.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Houghton, MI
Daniel, I noticed that you reverted my cleanup of the Houghton, Michigan article. I removed the huge number of subsections in part of the article, and replaced them with individual (short) paragraphs. In general, having one- or two-sentence subsections is a bad idea, as it clutters up the Table of Contents and is unnecessary for the structure of the article. Do you have any specific reasons for reverting? If not, I will be returning the page to its previous form. (Your revert message was... empty). -- dcclark (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aspiratage
I have added a "" template to the article Aspiratage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like a very interesting technique, but since Google searches turn up Wikipedia and its mirrors (plus Urban dictionary), I have to conclude that it has not yet made a significant impact on the art world. If you can provide independent sources to establish the notability of Aspiratage, that would be wonderful; otherwise, I will have to conclude that this article is another attempt at self-promotion. And in any case, I do not think that [ this link] meets Wikipedia's external link guidelines. Please don't add any more self-promotional links to Wikipedia articles; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The aspiratage article wasn't created by me, the Google search does turn up a lot other than Wikipedia, its mirrors and Urban dictionary (actually go through the Google results), and judging a surrealist technique which is obviously rather anti-artistic and extra-aesthetic (are we working on the totally discredited "surrealism is an artistic movement" again?), any impact it's made on the art world is irrelevant. Further, your characterisation of a link to an online movie of someone else making an aspiratage as "self-promotional" is rather strange.  In any case, while I am making no argument here on notability, have you checked the offline reference?  Any actions regarding the article I believe are premature before you've done this.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I can see that you didn't create the article, but with this edit, you've put a fairly unique stamp on the article, don't you think? Anyway, I've looked through the Google results, and I don't believe they establish notability, especially since some of the results lead to dictionary entries created by yourself. If I'm missing an important reference please draw my attention to it; but it might be better to do so at Talk:Aspiratage, where other people can evaluate the references. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [Re: fairly unique] I can't answer this. Something is either unique (as the name suggests) or it's not.  There can't be a scale of uniqueness.


 * [Re: reference] Again, you missed the book reference. Why don't Wikipedians regard books as legitimate references?  Why have all of my previous postings about this issue been ignored?  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, you probably want to make this comment at the AfD discussion (link below). I don't have access to that book, so if you could provide a quote that would be helpful. But please note that multiple independent sources are required to establish notability, and in my opinion the external links in the article don't qualify as reliable sources, and many of them don't seem truly independent. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, there's a thing called interlibrary loan. But in any case, your statement greatly disturbs me, not so much as it relates to a particular article, but how it relates to the development of Wikipedia as a whole.  Is Wikipedia going to be simply developed from online sources because people claim they "don't have access" to books?  If Wikipedia is developed without using books as sources, or used without using books as sources that someone "doesn't have access" to, whatever that means -- is it going to be restricted to the books on any given contributor's bookshelf? corner bookstore? local library? -- its development is going to be severely distorted and stunted.  As valuable a tool as Google is, Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a Google rehash.  Is anyone ever going to discuss any of this?  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, check out my contributions--I like books, use them as sources, and generally think that books are superior sources to websites. I sometimes use interlibrary loan to get books for Wikipedia articles. But guess what, I can't get Arte Euroamericano IV to show up in Worldcat. So I guess my research skills suck. You can make things easier by providing a full bibliographic reference (and the ISBN, if you've got it), and maybe quoting the book at the AfD discussion. But I'll mention again that articles usually need multiple independent sources, and I don't think the websites cited in Aspiratage qualify as reliable sources--so, at a minimum, we'd need another verifiable print source (or authoritative website). But that's just my opinion, you should express yours at Articles for deletion/Aspiratage. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you made a comment there while I was typing my last comment. Thanks! But note that I couldn't find Arte Euroamericano IV in Worldcat. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aspiratage
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aspiratage, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Aspiratage. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Self-promotional links
Hi, Daniel. I think that I haven't made myself sufficiently clear. Wikipedia policy frowns upon the addition of external links for the purpose of self-promotion. We've already talked about your habit of adding links to your Zazzle stamps, both under your named account and anonymous IPs. However, this edit to Aspiratage, made by User:208.68.26.71, is clearly by you, and is also inappropriate self-promotion. Links such as the myspace link added in this edit by User:141.219.44.183 are also self-promotional, as the video is described as a tribute to Daniel Boyer. Please cease adding such links; if you continue to do so, under your named account or any IP address, you may be blocked. If you feel that these links are a necessary addition to the respective articles, please discuss the proposed addition on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [we've already talked]: When? Are you making this up?  And I wonder why you say "I think I haven't made myself sufficiently clear" after a period in which I've not edited Wikipedia.


 * [is clearly by you]: I'm not sure why you say this. In any case, the Jesse Edwards video should be included (if the article is to be kept, which I'm taking no position on) in my opinion as it is an aspiratage done by someone other than me and if aspiratages were solely done by me, this would obviously be a strong argument for deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

mind the frames
In List of heraldic charges, is there a reason why you keep inserting ridiculously prolix links to search frames rather than to the content? I've commented on this (and related framing issues) dozens of times; perhaps you ignore me as a matter of policy, perhaps you're too lazy or clueless to get the direct link, or perhaps there's some advantage to preserving all that stuff that I misguidedly consider clutter? &mdash;Tamfang 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Harvard University people
. This IP is clearly you, and the edit was not a good idea; this falls under the category of self-promotion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your basis for this assertion? You keep on asserting these types of things without any stated basis.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Daniel, the IPs are from the same geographic area and have a similar contribution pattern to your named account. It's pretty obvious. By the way, have you been editing as User:Samuel O'Malley? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To call this "pretty obvious" shows very questionable judgment and vague thinking, to say the least; at least, it's far from "clearly". I don't know what the extent of the "geographical area" you are talking about is, but running an IP locator I'm getting Dodgeville, Michigan as the location.  And why are you suddenly talking about "Samuel O'Malley"?  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, our results differ, because I'm getting Houghton, Michigan as the location of that IP:. Regarding O'Mally, do you not have Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion on your watchlist? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * O.k., I see. Two questions: 1) do you find this URL is better than Geobytes, which I was using, and 2)why does it give Dodgeville on the top when the real data under it says it's from MTU?  Also, I don't have Arsenal on my watchlist, though I did edit the article quite some time ago; I've generally not edited articles about surrealism for a while due to my discouragement about their continual reversion by Classicjupiter2 and sockpuppets to present an idiosyncratic and Wigdoresque view of the whole subject, and Classicjupiter2's insistence of inserting Widgdorisms without any real meaning (such as "self-labelled" -- pretty much any group is going to be!) in articles.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't used Geobytes, but if it's giving Dodgeville it seems to be in error. I'll take a look at it, though. Classicjupiter2's activity seems to have lessened lately, so if you haven't been looking at the Arsenal article, you should--someone's made some big changes today, and since you have knowledge of the subject, you can check to see if they're accurate. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After taking a quick look at Geobytes, it's showing that my IP address is about 70 miles away from where I actually am. I think that dnsstuff.com would give similar information as well, which shows that these tools aren't foolproof. Nevertheless, it's unquestionable that 141.219.44.92 is registered to MTU, and it's also unquestionable that 141.219.44.92 added you to List of Harvard University people. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Intra-County Business Mail
In case you hadn't noticed, Intra-County Business Mail has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatise of Pataphysical Anatomy
Do you have any idea whether copies of this text are available, & if so, how? I have a good friend who'd love to look through it for a dissertation (& sheer enjoyment). PoetrixViridis 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kenn-grant-det.jpg
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Kenn-grant-det.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with GFDL-presumed and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually GFDL-self or PD-self. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cinnamint
A template has been added to the article Cinnamint, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rambutan (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Including primary sources in articles - clarification request
Hello, I hope this is the appropriate place to ask this. I found your name on the talk page of Don't include copies of primary sources, a subject that I am currently involved in a battle of wills over, and you were listed as someone to ask. The debate revolves around the difference between this and this. Basically, an article about a regular joke spot in a satirical newspaper consists of very little information, followed by a huge swathe of examples taken directly from the newspaper. Am I right to consider this inappropriate? Based primarily on the above policy and various sections of WP:NOT. Any assistance from a more experienced editor would be appreciated, happy editing! Jdcooper 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Copper Country Mall
Copper Country Mall, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Copper Country Mall satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Copper Country Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Copper Country Mall during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dotta·Riffic pen
A template has been added to the article Dotta·Riffic pen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Danelo 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ermine (heraldry)
I am currently trying to explain to one zealous Armenian that the herladic fur ermine did not originate in Armenia. Can you help? --EncycloPetey 04:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no. Although it sure seems off-the-wall to me, I've no cite on it. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mika Tan
Thank you for helping clean up Mika Tan! Question about one of your changes: It looks like the 'Notes' section you created contains the same content as the existing 'References' section. Is this a mistake, or are you still editing... Chewyrunt 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I was going to switch the 'References' to 'Notes'... --Daniel C. Boyer 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Volcanoes - heraldry charge
I noticed that you added text to the "heraldry charge" and "volcano" about the use of volcanoes as charges. I am interested in finding out more details. For example, can you direct me to any sources or images of volcanoes used as charges, please? GeoWriter 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure: http://home.att.net/~numericana/arms/swedenborg.htm (Emmanuel Swedenbourg), arms of Bouillante and Saint Claude under the Guadeloupe section of DÉPARTEMENTS D'OUTRE-MER of Communes de France at gaso.fr; arms of the Special Troops Battalion of the 25th Infantry Division of the United States Army (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/STB/STB25InfantryDivision.htm); the 306th Military Intelligence Battalion of the United States Army (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/MI/306MilitaryIntelligenceBattalion.htm; not a good example as basically volcanoes are supposed to be fumant or erupting, generally in the stylised way you've seem with the French arms); St. Denis, Renunion (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/re-stdn.html -- a really good example); and specific volcanoes in the arms of Piedmonte Etneo in Italy (http://www.araldicacivica.it/comuni/indexc.php?extrac=s&id_comune=5458), Ambato, Ecuador (http://www.ngw.nl/int/ecu/ambato.htm -- it is shown here with a rather degenerate naturalism) and Arequipa in Peru.(http://www.ngw.nl/int/peru/arequipa.htm)  Also read http://www.russiancollegeofheraldry.org/imperial_m.htm ; the volcano is not very large in the image there, though.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is very helpful. Thank you very much. GeoWriter 10:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis
 Minnesota Meetup Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00) Pracna on Main 117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota Map Please pass this on! RSVP here.  Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Upton University
A template has been added to the article Upton University, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Jamie jca 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Hello, Daniel. I've mentioned several times that you should not use Wikipedia for self-promotion. It seems that you have created a sockpuppet, User:Mark Sabine, which you've used to create the article Suine Anget, a band whose members are you and Allison Boyer. The first revision of the article (and all subsequent revisions) includes an external link to a Zazzle stamp categorized as a "Suine Anget Product", created by you. Suine Anget is now deleted, on the grounds that the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.


 * I'd certainly agree with this. But what the basis is for this characterisation of Mark Sabine is certainly beyond me; I've checked his contributions and they certainly seem to be far from any interests of mine.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mark Sabine is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. User:Sammy the Wind, which you appear to have used to insert Suine Anget into Irrealism (the arts) (in this diff), is also indef blocked.

Because of your continued use of Wikipedia as a self-promotional outlet, I'm blocking your account from editing for 24 hours. I don't take this step lightly; you've been here a long time, and you've never been blocked before. However, if you continue to make self-promotional edits, whether under this account, sockpuppet accounts, or IP accounts, you will be blocked again. I hope that doesn't become necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

An addendum: User:Sammy the Wind added a link to a Zazzle stamp created by you in this edit to Calumet, Michigan. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your artwork; please stop adding links to your Zazzle stamps, and to any other artwork you've created, unless you can demonstrate that the artwork meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, now I note recent revisions of Surrealist techniques by User:208.68.27.63 and User:Samuel O'Malley, which, among other things, insert an external link to artwork by you and another link to a "discussion" of said artwork (in actuality, a post in a comment section); see, e.g., this diff.


 * What's the difference between a post in a comment section and a discussion? --Daniel C. Boyer 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A post in a comment section is clearly not a reliable source; calling it a "discussion" is exaggerating its suitability as an external link. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly agree as regards the reliability of the source, but I'd also say that there's no special or magical meaning of "discussion"; it just means someone talking about something, or it could certainly be argued that it's two people talking about something. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, I will not extend your block, but this is more self-promotion. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is certainly begging the question, at least, and highly questionable to assume that any link to any material to do with me by any user is thereby "self-promotion." --Daniel C. Boyer 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the meaning of "blocked" isn't clear. While your account is blocked, you should not edit Wikipedia under any username or IP address. Your edits today as User:141.219.44.45 constitute block evasion, and I will therefore extend the block on your account. Again, while this account is blocked, you should not edit Wikipedia under any other username or IP address. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)