Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Poetry is having a revival and we are trying to determine who is still active in the project. If you are, please answer this roll call by placing an *asterisk* next to your name on the list of participants here. Thanks, Wrad00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Search links from www.national.archsrch.gov.za are temporary and thus useless. Try to get the address of the actual page found instead. This may involve removing a frame. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Daniel,
I found you on the list of illustrators and wondered if you'd help us out with an image. I placed a request at the Graphics Lab some time ago, with no takers. It appears that real artists are thin on the ground on Wikipedia.
We'd like an artistic interpretation of the appearance of strings, see this copyright image on the web and here for examples. This is a very esoteric area of particle physics, so surrealism is strangely appropriate. The image would be used primarily in the String Theory article, but I left in the others for interest.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings! I have been working on Charge (heraldry), trying to write a manageable article based on the very lengthy list that preceded it. One passage, "The snowflake is only known in more recent times, though the snowball predates this by some centuries," stuck out as a dubious claim. I'm really not sure when the snowflake or "snow crystal" was first known in heraldry, but I cannot think of a single instance of a snowball in early armory, and I see no mention of it in any of my heraldry books (including Fox-Davies, Volborth, Neubecker, and The Oxford Guide to Heraldry), nor in Parker's Glossary. Looking for the claim's source in the article's history, I found it in this edit, so I issue you this friendly challenge. Please provide a verifiable source or the statement will be removed. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Daniel, I am sorry to inform you that Franklin died Sunday night at his home. I am a photographer not a wikipede so I decided not to alter your article, preferring to simply let you know what happened. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Tom Good, NYC Thomas Good (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've removed your insertion of your name on the list still again, no doubt you'll add it back. I don't think you understand, your sock puppetry is painfully easy to show. Please stop.99.151.172.170 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article J. Karl Bogartte has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of cats with fraudulent diplomas. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
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.
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. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Daniel C. Boyer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a discussion regarding your recent edits found here, you are strongly encouraged to participate. -- Atama頭 20:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what this nonsense is about someone I've never heard of being my sockpuppet and don't know the evidence for the claim. I tried to resolve it but I think something went wrong with the edit. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything about my notability or lack thereof, although I don't really know what this has to do with anything. With what certain editors are like on here I'm sure something negative will be made of even the previous sentence, though. -Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Melee.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hello, Daniel C. Boyer. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is wrong with this picture? until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Graham8710:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Daniel,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Artist Chevalier Daniel C. Boyer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I live in Waltham. There is nothing unique about this neighborhood that it deserves an article of its own. Anything wiki worthy can be incorporated into article on Waltham.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I live in Waltham. There is nothing unique about this neighborhood that it deserves an article of its own. Anything wiki worthy can be incorporated into article on Waltham.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Daniel C. Boyer. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Studio art, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seal of Hawaii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compartment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Daniel C. Boyer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Daniel C. Boyer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please do not again attempt to add your painting to the article on SoHo Square (Manhattan), unless you can show by a citation from a reliable source that it is considered to be notable. Do not try this using this account, either of the two IP accounts you've utilized (172.58.217.103 and 172.58.171.64) or any other IP. Deliberately editing with an IP to avoid scrutiny of your edits is a violation of our policy on sockpuppets, as is creating a new account for that purpose. Such activities can get you blocked from editing for sockpuppetry. Continuing to add your own non-notable painting is a violation of WP:PROMO, and can get you blocked for being disruptive as well. Wikipedia is not a promotional or advertising medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what this is even about but it seems to be several nested levels of question-begging. And I have a question about notability: is there any indication that references that are not the subjects of their own articles need to be notable separate from their simple relevance as a reference to the subject in question? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
You just tried to re-insert your painting into the article (again without a citation indicating that it is notable) using the IP 172.58.224.105. In doing so, you labelled the edit as undoing vandalism, which is untrue, you removed sourced information, and you restored a typo. Obviously, your only concern was to get your painting into the article. That's just not going to happen unless you provide a citation from a WP:Reliable source which says that it is notable - otherwise any artist could insert mention of their paiting into the article about the painting's subject. Any attempt on your part to do so without a citation, no matter what IP you use, will be deleted. I hope that's clear. If you try again, I will report you to an administrator for the appropriate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 4th Street. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avenue D. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SoHo Square (Manhattan). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
If you read the standard, I believe it will say it takes at least two to make an edit war, and I believe you are one of the combatants. However, you do have some points. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
You mean like streets don't magically turn into different streets when they're renamed for a few blocks, or that you should not have added numerous unsourced references to your paintings in Wikipedia articles to promote your work? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2017 (Ud)
No, they do magically turn into different streets. That is the magic of naming. And can you take a break from your weird vendetta, based on nothing, against me, to admit that you have also been engaging in an edit war? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have to disrupt it a first time to disrupt it again. The page is being edited by people only interested in pushing a certain (in my view trivially refutable) viewpoint. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've removed the edit in question twice and Nytend once. There is a discussion in progress and you are aware of it. Unambiguously you are edit warring, now on multiple articles, whether you were responsible for all the removed edits or not. If you replace that edit at Marquette again without concensus, I'll ask for you to be blocked. Is there anything about that you are not clear on? John from Idegon (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Please note that using proxy servers such as 64.94.31.206 to make edits, as you did on Perspiration[1] (followed shortly after by an edit under your own account to restore the proxy's deleted edit of non-notable material [2] is a violation of the "Avoiding scrutiny" concept of the sockpuppetry policy, and can lead to you being blocked from editing if you continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
There are multiple potential problems with this statement. I am not familiar with 64.94.31.206, and I am thus not sure whether it is a proxy server. I have several questions -- is it even possible to edit Wikipedia from a proxy server? It is my impression that, at least by and large, proxy servers are blocked from editing because of the very problems to which you allude, though that might be wrong. Further, I have several times tried to point out that you seem to have a misunderstanding of the application of notability. If you will read the relevant guidelines, the notability standard seems to apply only to something warranting a standalone article, not each item or statement or piece of content in every article. This to me seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what notability is all about. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
At least in general, unless you are unwilling to read the standards on notability, I'm not asserting anything that can be believed or disbelieved, so what you write makes no sense (perhaps I am misunderstanding and, if so, please forgive me). Let me boil it down to asking one question and making one point. My question is, is it even possible to use a proxy server in this way, or am I misunderstanding? My point is that I don't think the notability guidelines mean what you think they do. Doesn't it say right in them that they are standards for the creation (or at least retention) of standalone articles, not every line or claim of content in an article. I could be wrong, and, if so, please correct me. Moreover, just saying "I don't believe you" is unhelpful. What in what I wrote do you not believe? I have also looked over your contributions and have noticed several problems with your approach in places, such as your using "unsourced" to mean "sourced". --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am unwilling to allow you to allow you to blatantly attempt to use Wikipedia to promote your artwork, when you are non-notable, and none of your artworks are notable, as evidenced by the fact that you never provide citations from reliable sources that say they are noteworthy. Over 15 years here, you've developed quite a degreee of proficiency at Wikilawyering, which had gotten you out of trouble numerous times. This time, it's not going to work. No non-notable artwork from a non-notable artist (you) is going to make it into the encyclopedia. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop using IPs to hide the fact that it is you who is adding material about your paintings to Wikipedia articles. This is a violation of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY.
The material you are adding is not notable, and has been reverted by multiple editors on that basis. It does not become notable simply because you wait some time before attempting to reinsert it.
Wikipedia is not a promotional or advertising medium, and your edits are in violation of WP:PROMO as well as WP:COI.
You seem to have an assumption that no one else would have an interest in my work. Please forgive me if this is not true but, otherwise, upon what is this based other than bias or wild guessing? Also, why do you seem to be applying notability standards relating to the creation of standalone articles to details or references within articles when this is a misapplication of the standard? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your vendetta against me has assumed some bizarre proportions. The idea that practically every IP that has ever existed is one of my sockpuppets makes practically no sense, and I have no idea who Brian Mackelove is supposed to be. You essentially never explain the reasons for any of your assertions, so it is extremely difficult for anyone to properly analyse them, but as any attempt to defend oneself is somehow seen as a violation of the rules and guidelines you persist in deliberately and perversely misinterpreting, there's really no point in my saying anything. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
No one seems to have informed you that the indef block above is in furtherance of a community-imposed site ban. If, for some reason, you are un-site banned, you are still under a community-imposed topic ban, to wit:
Daniel C. Boyer is hereby topic banned from creating, editing, or attempting to delete articles about himself. Furthermore, he his banned from inserting his presence into other articles as well as banned from removing his presence from other articles. Any edit that appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL about himself is to be considered a violation of this topic ban.[4]
Latest comment: 3 years ago125 comments8 people in discussion
Regarding this, a reminder that you are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, in furtherance of a community-imposed site ban, and that, further, you are "topic banned from creating, editing, or attempting to delete articles about [your]self. Furthermore, [you are] banned from inserting [your] presence into other articles as well as banned from removing [your] presence from other articles. Any edit that appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL about [your]self is to be considered a violation of this topic ban." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, this wannabe is still inserting his nonnatable "works of art" into articles, now as an IP? Beyond My Ken, can you make a list here of all the articles which in the past he's vandalized this way, so I and others can watchlist them? EEng01:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed that two of his Commons images are in Surrealist techniques, one illustrating "Cubomania" and the other "Outagraph". I looked at them and them seemed to be legitimate illustrations of the technique involved, with no mention of the artist's name. Of course, whether the technique is real or not I don't know, I'd have to do some research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, congratulations. You and your sockpuppet User:Beyond My Ken have gotten what you wanted by lying, question-ducking, making personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, knowingly distorting the notability guidelines to refer include the content of articles when you know it only refers to the subjects of articles, and pursuing the ridiculous theory that only I would ever include information about me in an article. Have I just about covered it? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
You can have whatever opinion you want, but what you can't do is edit Wikipedia with an IP, as you just did on Perspiration. Although you certainly don't deserve it, considering your years of promotional exploitation of Wikipedia, please consider this your final warning. If you edit with an IP again, I will seek out an administrator to shut down your talk page access. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
This essentially proves my point. One of your main assertions all along has been based on the assumption that the only person who would have an interest in adding material about me to articles is I myself. But the only thing behind this is really your, and some others', negative view of me. It is something that could be assumed of anyone, and certainly any Wikipedia editor, and maybe it would be true, and maybe not. But given your (plural) propensity and facility for question-begging and avoiding legitimate questions and concerns I don't expect any response to any of this.
I have seen plenty wrong with how several subjects are dealt with on Wikipedia, with how legitimate evidence is brushed aside, how "unsourced" is used to mean "sourced", how gratuitous personal attacks are excused against certain people but prohibited against others, and how POV and other approaches contrary to consensus and policy are used when it is necessary to somewhat distort parts of the articles on some subjects, even when logic has to be stood on its head. While none of this is true of most of Wikipedia, there are some gaps or apertures where this sort of misconduct appears to be all but obligatory, and these questions are not to be brought up. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Either that, or your anemic contribution history was so completely focused on promoting yourself that you never learned what WP's policies and guidelines mean, how they interact, and how they're applied in practice. You keep blindly repeating this trope about WP:NNC, as if that's all there is. EEng02:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you actually look at all of my contribution history, it is as close to objectively as it is possible to be not anemic, although I have edited less in the last few years. I have edited massively on the subject of heraldry, for example. And just out of curiosity, what do you think is wrong with the "trope"? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 11:00 pm, Today (UTC−4)
As already stated, it ignores what WP's policies and guidelines mean, how they interact, and how they're applied in practice. EEng03:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
DCB, you're saying BMK and I are the same person? Honestly, I don't know which of us is more insulted! What do you think, BMK... which of us is more insulted? EEng01:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm definitely your sockpuppet, I know that, are you not mine? What kind of 4th dimensional hell would that be, where I am you, but you are not me? Ooooh, I feel like a sophomore in college again, smoking weed and pondering the mysteries of life! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh, that's right, it's a movement, like anyone gives a fuck. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this? EEng02:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm hardly embarrassing myself by telling the truth about this, and even if I am, it's hardly the point. And you're really proving my point here -- there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that I don't care about, and I expect that many people don't care about the subjects of the articles I've edited. It's POV that articles should be changed in any way because anyone doesn't care about them, regardless of who that someone is. --,Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Unintelligible, but I've been asked to stop engaging you. If you don't understand after all these years, you never will. EEng03:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
So here's the deal Daniel. You are currently blocked an your talk page should only be used to appeal said block when you feel you can contribute constructively. Making baseless accusations and personal attacks will cost you your ability to edit said talk page. Being blocked means no evading it by using a different account or IP addresses. I'm not going to comment on whether or not you really are doing such, but the community has decided you should be blocked so it's on you whether you choose to be productive in the eyes of the community. @EEng and Beyond My Ken: please stop goading this user. You've said your part, and given him his final warning.—CYBERPOWER(Message)02:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are aware that it is utter idiocy to assume that any information added about a person is added by that person, right? I think we'd have to say, unless there is the slightest reason behind this to think otherwise, that maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Am I missing something? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
When a sockpuppet denies he's you [5] by arguing sarcastically Oh, and any edit regarding Kevin Spacey is done by Kevin Spacey, any edit about Tom Cruise by Tom Cruise and any edit about Donald Trump is made by Donald Trump, and then you come here under your own account to make the identical argument, well... duh... you don't have to be a Harvard man to figure that one out. Which is it: do you think we're that stupid, or is it just that you yourself are that stupid?
Treating your query, for a moment, as if it were sincere, here's the answer: Kevin Spacey, Tom Cruise, and Donald Trump are all important people who have done attention-worthy things that people care about. You, on the other hand, are a complete nobody whose primary claim to fame is that when one googles Daniel C. Boyer the very first result is (and I am not making this up) Wikipedia talk:Problem users/Daniel C. Boyer – a discussion from fourteen years ago (you read that right: FOURTEEN) about your relentless insistence on inserting your nonnotable self into articles all over the project, and the first of several such discussions culminating in your being booted out on your talentless self-promoting ass to the immense relief of productive editors everywhere. No one but you even knows you exist, or if they do they certainly don't care.
Well, all this really proves is what a complete rock-headed moron you are. Let's leave aside the fact that I've never argued my notability, so none of this really counts for anything. So, whether I am "a complete nobody" or not doesn't really make a difference. (The first Google result on a subject might or might not be something weird, stupid, or tending to suggest the irrelevance of the subject; I'm not totally sure of the relevance of this.) I have been extremely productive as an editor, and my contributions to heraldry-related subjects alone will demonstrate this, although with respect to some much of what I wrote has been subsequently edited. As for my being reinstated, this very screed makes my argument. That I am considered by you to be in some way a failure, that you don't like me, or that my fashion sense is somehow inadequate are all beside the point, not that we should really pay much attention to the opinions of a man who is such a moron that he thinks there is a generation between father and son. The argument is apparently that only the subjects of articles, or people who are involved with them in some way, contribute to them. It might occur to more than one person that this is a ridiculous theory, and indeed it would be the theory that ate Wikipedia. This is backed up by the subjective "proof" that some people don't like me. Obviously I should be unbanned, as it seems this is all there is to it, but several people on Wikipedia haven't gotten a fair shake. Am I "talentless"? Plenty of talentless people edit Wikipedia, and plenty are even the subjects of articles. It is crystal clear that much of what is behind my banning is blatant violation of Wikipedia policy; I've tried to argue this but there is no reason to believe that anything will change now. It's o.k. to have all this animus against me, I just don't know what it's supposed to have to do with the subject. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Talent "skipping generations" means that talented fathers have talentless sons; "between" don't come into it. Maybe there's some Harvard Summer School course you can take to learn about sayings and maxims and stuff like that. On the evidence, your father must have been talented indeed. EEng03:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps this is fair enough, but it begs several questions, as, when did I ever claim to be talented, and what does my talent or lack thereof have to do with anything? Again, it is virtually certain that talentless people edit Wikipedia along with the talented, and talentless people as well as the talented are covered in Wikipedia, but none of this has anything to do with Wikipedia policies. The reasons relating to my blocking seem to boil down to people not liking me, thinking I haven't accomplished enough, or that I lack talent. Whatever the evidence about any of these things, it has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. I won't be able to get any questions answered about any of this supposed case. (By the way, what is the book my father wrote?) --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
You better look up beg the question, because you don't seem to know what it means. Not sure from where, but I somehow had the idea your dad was the author of [6], though I now see that's unlikely; maybe it was your grandfather, and if so that blows the generation-skipping theory all to hell. People don't like you because you've wasted their time with your relentless self-promotion, not to mention the wikilawyering on display right here and now. Ridiculing you turns out to be unchallenging – you practically do the work for me – and has lost its charm after these several rounds, so I won't be responding further. But please, stop trying to pass yourself off as a Harvard alumnus – Harvard has enough to be embarrassed about with its actual alumni. EEng06:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I’ve semi’d the page but the user is IP hopping too much. Not even a range block will be sufficient to cover them all. At least working out what ranges to block isn’t happening on my phone.—CYBERPOWER(Around)03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Same numbered account? EEng 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. Just to prepare you, history also suggests he'll start the rounds again of the other articles listed a bit higher on this page, so likely I'll be back asking for more. EEng01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, 3 months of PC isn't much help. We still have to revert him, and experience shows he comes back months and years later. Indef semi is justified. EEng13:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not at all. I felt 3 month PC1 was a good starting point via RFPP as there were no prior protections on that article. If there's a well known history beyond that, certainly go further. -- ferret (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Cyberpower678, today's winners are Rhinorrhea and Mat (picture framing). This dumbass probably thinks he's cleverly vexing us with his slow-motion tour of all his worthless creations, but I'm enjoying it, really. About the time the novelty wears off all the articles will be protected and we'll done with him. EEng03:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Actually I've been trying to create an edit filter, my very first one, to disallow additions of Daniel C. Boyer for non-extendedconfirmed users. So far, it's not working. :/—CYBERPOWER(Chat)18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's him, thanks for catching and reverting. I've added the article to my list. @Cyberpower678: The filter didn't catch it because he never mentioned his name. Can you expand the filter to catch "Boyer, Daniel C." and other variations on that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes because I didn't correctly read the syntax documentation when I fashioned the abuse filter. I have fixed the bug. The abuse filter should be able to catch everything.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Examining some of the blocked edits, it looks as if the filter may need some tweaking. I'm not sure why the edits of DrLuthersAssistant, such as this one were blocked. Or this one where the name "Dan Bunting" seems to have triggered it. I'm not sure what triggered this one. Which is not to say that the filter isn't doing its job - it blocked quite a few actual attempts to add DCB's name, but I wonder if there's any way to reduce the number of false positives? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh that was when I cocked up the filter. It was promptly fixed and tested before being allowed to block edits again. :-). Needless to say the filter has functioned perfectly since it was fixed.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)22:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Looking at log since the current version went in (May 9) there seem to be no false hits, and no successful edit has shown up on my watchlist, so good. But this fool is very determined, so I suggest that (a) the filter be made private and (b) since he's no doubt watching this page, further discussion of the filter should occur off-wiki (feel free to email me). Also, given that this is a 15 -year campaign by the fool, with very long periods of inactivity, the comments should note that the filter should remain in place indefinitely. (Maybe one of us could set up a Google Alert looking for the fool's obituary, at which time the filter could be disabled after a reasonable waiting period -- say 5 additional years, since I wouldn't put it past the fool to fake his own death or leave something in his will to underwrite continued spamming of Wikipedia to promote his nonnotable sad sorry poseur self.)
The filter has revealed that the fool has been trying to spam himself to Boyertown, Pennsylvania and in a moment I'll add that to our master list above; everyone should make sure the entire set is on our watchlists. (They're all low-traffic.) EEng22:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good. Given the history it's worth it to risk some false positives in order to maximize effective blockage -- the filter can always be adjusted if those begin to happen. Remember, the difference between a criminal who attacks your system and a fool is that the fool attacks unpredictably and on a wider front. And this guy's quite a fool, despite having attended Harvard Summer School. EEng21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
You said "this range" -- what range? Can we block it? In any event, while we don't block IPs indefinitely, I think it's time to start using multiyear blocks.
For the record, we now know from the link [16] Doug Weller removed in the diff above that this dumbass' full name is Daniel Christopher Boyer, in case that matters in the future; presumably, registering his "coat of arms" in South Africa (!) is part of his childhood fantasy that he's a "chevalier". Oh look! He's had a piece of cardboard exhibited at The Squirrel Museum! [17] And he uses the spelling colour because he's cosmopolitan! EEng15:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@EEng: the range in my edit after the word "socking". I've blocked for 2 weeks as that's how long there have been edits from the range. It looks pointless to block any longer as he hops around. I do much longer blocks when they look as though they will make a difference. Doug Wellertalk16:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oops, got it. Didn't look closely enough. I've added three articles to the list near the beginning of this thread, and I suggest these be added to watchlists. EEng16:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty certain that the vagina staff was added to the article by DCB in the past, but even without researching that, the content is squarely in his territory. Thanks for the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the IP address makes it clear. It's in the same /64 range as the Outagraphy edits, meaning it's the same individual connection. As it's static, I've blocked the /64 range for a year. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll stop searching through Drawing for "vagina", which was boring because there's a lot of edits to that article, so WikiBlame only cover 2 years at a time. I just found one of his sock adding it in June 2010. [19]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
He's actually re-uploading images that were previously deleted. An admin there told him not to do that and deleted it again, and he just went ahead and re-uploaded another one. The admin had threatened a block last time, so perhaps he'll be blocked on Commons as well as site-banned here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Surrealist poets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrealist Women until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surautomatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soufflage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquapasto until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natatorium until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleflora until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello Daniel C. Boyer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Marquette, Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
