Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4

message: Having both :Category:Art movements and :Category:Cultural movements is unecessary, as "Art movements" is a sub-category of "Cultural movements". Hyacinth 00:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that someone looking for art movements in :Category:Art movements should be able to find this article, either in that category, or in a subcategory. I don't see a problem with also having this article listed under :Category:Cultural movements. It seems kind of useful actually, as it emphasizes that surrealism is not just an art movement. ~leif 01:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: After researching Wigdor, and reviewing the article history and the arguments on this talk page, please vote for one of the following, or suggest another course of action below:
* option #1: Keith Wigdor should be included in the article as the leader of Surrealism in the 21st century. The entire article could even be replaced with the simple statement "Surrealism is Keith Wigdor". (this option is included to recognize a POV that has been expressed by anonymous editor(s))
* option #2: Keith Wigdor should not be included in the article at all because he is not notable enough, and because there is a strong possibility (based on writing style and Wigdor's history on the internet) that he actually is one or more of the anonymous wikipedia users who promotes Wigdor here and frequently reverts against general consensus.
** this would be my first choice ~leif 18:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a link to the policy which this poll violates. Gamaliel 22:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE

message: * I kindly disagree with both Leif and Daniel since it is evident by their contributions to the Wikipedia Surrealism discussion page (and Boyer's refusal to validate the existence of his surrealist friends by not providing pictures) are biased against Keith. This is another attempt at bypassing consensus which was evident in the past administrator JRosenweig's success at successful agreement with the article. Plus, Infrogmation already started an article on Keith which states he is working in Surrealism. If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages. Vague and invalid information dominates many of the surrealism related pages and particulary this surrealism article. Did you all know about Yvon Goll? His surrealist publication came out before Breton's first manifesto. I can provide the factual reference material on this. Also, Boyer's friends, The Rosemonts should be removed from the Surrealism article if Keith Wigdor's, "Surrealism in 2004" since there is much doubt as to the claim on the Rosemonts meeting with Breton and there is still no picture to prove that claim. Still Boyer will not provide one picture on this Brandon Freels either. Also, I recommend some kind of input from experts on Surrealism, hopefully Jennifer Mundy and Mary Ann Caws to validate the information on Boyer and all his friends. Gamaliel is welcome to his or her opinion as anyone here, but if you are really attempting to validate information on Keith Wigdor in regards to this surrealism article, you must apply the same scrutiny to all the reference information on here, which needs to be examined with intensive research. I cannot believe any claims by the Rosemonts that they met Breton until a picture of them with Andre Breton in 1965 is provided, same goes for Boyer's friend Freels, where is the picture? You really need to poll all the reference information links on The Surrealist Movement in the USA as well, plus everything in this article.24.168.66.27 20:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-voting replies to this poll

message: If Keith's, "Surrealism in 2004" is removed from the article, I will kindly propose an intensive investigative review and poll into validating all of the information on the Surrealism article and all its related pages.24.168.66.27 21:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wigdor Poll and Surrealism Article Poll

message: Dear Leif, your admission to your bias against the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your admission that your poll was not approved by a sysop, and your admission that you did not speak with an administrator, plus the overwhelming animosity and name-calling in your posts, "sock puppet" and the misguided efforts of your ad hominen attacks against anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, proves that you are not to be trusted with editing this article in good faith. I will not deny the fact that you have the right to edit, but your failure at providing fairness and good faith, plus sincerity, proves that you are using this Wikipedia service for personal gains of entertainment or self-satisfaction. At least Daniel C.Boyer knows the Surrealism subject and though I firmly disagree with him, at least he is very aware and very knowledgable of the subject. You are on some kind of personal vendetta with anyone who posts in favor of the surrealism article subject, Keith Wigdor, and your own admission to having bias proves that you and your poll is not valid and totally inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and practices, plus you are a fairly new user here. Leif, you need to do these two things, in good faith, leave the Keith Wigdor paragraph alone and stop vandalizing the article by removing the paragraph or stop circumventing Wikipedia policy for your own self aggrandizement and personal attacks against those who post in favor of the surrealism article subject Keith Wigdor. I have a strong feeling that you will persist in carrying on with your attempts at bypassing consensus and any attempt to try to remove the information on Keith Wigdor from the surrealism article, so I will ask you to please stop and let it go! You have refused to co-operate with me in good faith and your sneaky attacks and questions are unjustified and they undermine the integrity of the editing process here on Wikipedia. You refuse to reach any kind of consensus and you are beyond compromise. Please stop the name calling and unfair labels and attacks and leave the article alone, unless you have any surrealist related information, hopefully on maybe, Aime Cesairre or Andre Thirion, like I asked you in the past, which you still refuse to examine. I will not engage in discussions with those who admit to bias and admit to violating Wikipedia policy. Stop!24.168.66.27 00:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wikipedia policy has been violated? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This person 63.169.104.2 is right about this user Leif

message: Dear Infrogmation, this is in good faith as in answer to your question. 
The user Leif has violated all of the following,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
Do not make personal attacks on the Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy
Consult widely - make a special effort to engage potential critics of the new policy, engage them and get them to help find the middle ground early. Do not rush - you will get there faster if you give the process the time it needs. People may oppose an idea simply because they feel it has not had adequate discussion, and especially if the feel a policy is being pushed through to circumvent discussion. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy#How_are_policies_decided.3F
Key policies
You don't need to read every Wikipedia policy before you contribute! However, the following policies are key to a productive Wikipedia experience, and the sooner you get to grips with them, the better.
1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Use the criteria at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines to develop the survey (some parties may dispute the validity of the survey if this is not done properly). The survey should be carefully designed to present all sides of the dispute fairly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines
The following is a page outlining the guidelines that may be followed when using surveys on the Wikipedia. These are not binding in any way.
1. Any Wikipedian may start a survey on any topic, but attempts to reach consensus are much, much, MUCH preferred, and should perhaps be followed even when it pains us most. 
2. Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. You will need to resolve the following issues: 
Infrogmation, I have the evidence to back up my case and Leif has refused consensus and admitted to bias against the surrealism article paragraph subject on Keith Wigdor.24.168.66.27 02:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above survey guidelines specifically state that they are recommendations and need not be followed to the letter. I believe the poll here is as near as we'll get to consensus, with currently 5 votes to drop mention of wigdor, and 2 anonymous votes to keep him. The question of the second "keep" vote being a sockpuppet of yours is not an unreasonable one, or a "personal attack", considering that question has been raised before in an RfC and was not denied then. If you think you have a "case" and want to initiate some sort of official wikipedia dispute process, go for it. I bet they'll suggest you make a login name, too. I've been tempted to start such a process myself, but I'm reluctant to waste a sysops' time with you. ~leif 02:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A response to Infrogmation's question about what policy has been violated

message: Dear Leif, Dear Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie
I think that Pierre went crazy and you have to see what he wrote in the article! He deleted the entire article and substituted some crazy and insane rant!24.168.66.27 19:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leif! Infrogmation! We need your help on the Surrealism-related article on Zazie!

message: I am requesting the protection of this page or the blocking of 24.168.66.27, due to violation of the 3-revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4), as part of a continued practice of reverting against the consensus. I hope this page will not have to stay protected for long, and I am sorry 24.168.66.27 has insisted on pushing the issue this far. ~leif 00:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Leif, you admitted that it was your opinion. You violated policy by not addressing consensus first and talking with a sysop. Then you state that you, "will not waste a sysops time with you"24.168.66.27 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying is my opinion? What consensus was not addressed? Do you even know what consensus means? The current vote is 6-1, and you continue to revert this article anyway... You are now making it necesary to waste a sysops time, after already having wasted far too much of mine. I'm going offline for a while; I ask again that you please stop using this article to promote Keith Wigdor. ~leif 01:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Please read, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version#Reverts_and_edit_conflicts
24.168.66.27 01:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What? How does that say you did not break the 3 revert rule? You're not making any sense. ~leif 01:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Disagreement over if a paragraph belongs in the article is not "vandalism". It may (or may not) be inappropriate, but please try not to throw around allegations of "vandalism" lightly or inaccurately. Multiple revert wars IS innappropriate and against Wikipedia policy, hence I am temporarily protecting the page; see below. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another false allegation made by Leif, since I did not break the 3 revert rule because...

message: Page temporarily protected due to continued revert war. If possible, please try to discuss and resolve differences. You may see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for further options. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to establish consensus on this issue, and resolve our differences, but based on the fact that this user has been reverting this change on this article for many months before I was involved, I think it's unlikely that they will just go away. What would you recommend as a next step here? ~leif 02:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: What request will you obey? Obviously you can't edit the page right now, but will you stop reverting after the protection is lifted? You're the only person reverting to your version, so if you will obey my request to abide by consensus and not include Keith Wigdor, then the protection can be lifted! Can you clarify what request you mean to say you will obey? Thanks. ~leif 01:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Infrogmation, I respect your authority and status here at this great Wikipedia service. I have absolute faith in your decision. I will obey your request and I ask that the user Leif stop making allegations and violating policy against me and anyone else that supports the paragraph subject.24.168.66.27 01:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What request will you obey? Obviously you can't edit the page right now, but will you stop reverting after the protection is lifted? You're the only person reverting to your version, so if you will obey my request to abide by consensus and not include Keith Wigdor, then the protection can be lifted! Can you clarify what request you mean to say you will obey? Thanks. ~leif 01:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Infrogmation, thank you for your insight and good faith decision

message: I've unprotected the page. I hope it can stay open to edits, and that I won't need to reprotect it or block anyone from editing. A suggestion: How about before anyone again makes an edit that they have seen reverted in the past, and hence already know is controvercial, they post the suggested change here in talk, with an explanation of why they think it would make the Surrealism article better? If other people think the proposed change would make the article worse rather than better, explain why they object. Please no personal attacks, let's just try to have a better article. -- Infrogmation 16:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected, for now 

message: As it is stated by Wikipedia.63.169.104.2 20:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The, "survey" and "consensus" are not binding

message: I came here from RfC. Is the dispute still active? Maurreen 06:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC