Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Daniel C. Boyer

Daniel C Boyer and counter-allegations

User:Daniel C. Boyer is continuing to make unhelpful contributions. Aside from his self-promotion activities long under discussion at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer, he has been insistent in making unwelcome additions to many other pages. The trouble is that his assertions are often wildly distorted or use fancy, nonstandard terminology for mundane concepts. He has been involved in edit wars with a number of reliable users and the effort spent debunking his nonsense has become excessive. See Talk:Collage,

I would challenge Kat to explain just what is nonsense about my contribution to Collage. If the problem is that I employ "fancy, nonstandard" terminology therein, this is exactly appropriate for the types of surrealist collage I have added which have been removed based on truly bizarre standards of "nonindependence." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Kat that Daniel C. Boyer's insistence on placing utterly self-promotional information of questionable value is an annoyance.

Interestingly, your complaints about my "self-promotional" contributions refer almost exclusively to contributions that are not self-promotional except by the furthest reach and the most twisted and bizarre of standards. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:34, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I also question the above statement that the removals were based on "truly bizarre standards of 'nonindependence'". While there seems to still be a vigorous debate on the guidelines for verifiability going forward, I think everyone can agree that, for a statement to be considered factual, the author must be able to provide sources that are both wholly independent of the author (e.g. no financial ties, no familial ties, etc.) and provide evidence to support the author's statement. Otherwise, there is a clear conflict-of-interest problem. Daniel C. Boyer has done us a service with his self-promotional efforts by illustrating this problem vividly, but I, for one, would like him to stop producing examples. SpeakerFTD 16:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk:United States Secret Service,

There isn't anything here to support what you are saying. Please show me the "wildly distorted" assertions or "fancy, nonstandard terminology" here. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Art history,

What is your particular beef concerning this? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:54, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Chocolate, Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive1;

There is nothing really "wild" about the allegations I made in Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive1 when you consider that the subject itself is a minority and non-mainstream position. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:56, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

some other examples have already been deleted; other examples can be found. Kat 03:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User:Kat created a new page, purporting to be an auto-biography, which she later explained contained false information. She did this explicitly to prove a point about autobiographical pages, following debate over the Daniel C. Boyer article amd, for example, wikipedia:auto-biography. Listed on 6 Aug 2003.

Daniel C. Boyer considers this "inappropriate" and listed Kat on this page.

Kosebamse and Daniel Quinlan disagree.

Martin considers this possibly a very minor faux pas, but done with good intentions, and not something anyone should get excited about.

User:Mbecker has edited Daniel C. Boyer to include information about two (possibly the same man) figures from the 19th century whom he facetiously calls "historically significant" just to prove a point about me (to any would-be responders: I am not arguing for or against my historical significance or insignificance in any way). Nothing relating to the farmer shows any significance beyond a very ordinary life; there is no allegation of any acomplishment or situation involving him that would by the wildest stretch colourably justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there is such significance, but it is not mentioned in the section, which contains nothing that should be listed in an article about him, even were such an article warranted, but his marriage. The soldier has no historical significance except serving in a very minor rank in the U.S. Civil War. It is nowhere alleged that he did anyting of significance on or off its battlefields. He was apparently killed in battle, and that's unfortunate, but I don't think Wikipedia is going to be a place for articles on every casualty of the U.S. Civil War.

Trying to prove a possibly valid point by disingenuous behaviour is not, in my opinion, appropriate in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:18, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, so we have an ordinary farmer of no particular significance, an ordinary soldier of no particular significance, and - an ordinary artist of no particular significance. You're right, nothing justifies the inclusion of such people in an encyclopaedia. --Wik 13:56, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

I completely understand why articles about perceived unimportant individuals could upset you. There are several policies (list policies here) underway to handle this type of thing. Maybe you should take part in constructing these policies? MB 17:54, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

moved in

Daniel C. Boyer's self-aggrandizement is out of control. Any possible permutation, misspelling, misrendering, permutation of a misspelling, or vaguely related reference to one of his works inevitably has a link, redirect, or reference added by him to his non-user page or one of his self-entered advertizements for his works. --Daniel Quinlan 05:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is most clearly a gross exaggeration. I think Daniel Quinlan should qualify this. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:36 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1994 in film, 1971, and his other changes are just the smallest example (of Boyer self-promotion). Connecticut had this: "(The imaginary town of Kenenaugsuck, Connecticut is said in Daniel C. Boyer's short story "Ononpo" to be the location of the Ononpo philosophical re-education camp.)" --Daniel Quinlan 09:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)