User talk:Classicjupiter2/Archive 1

cleared of harassment by user Bleedy. I will contact an administrator.Classicjupiter2 22:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

clear

I left a warning note on User:Bleedy's talk page. Please go over the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and associated pages; you've been here more than long enough to learn how to properly format talk page comments and link to other articles and edits you wish to point out. See also Talk:Surrealist techniques. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 14:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Infrogmation.Classicjupiter2 01:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

regarding this edit 18 September

The context : "Revision as of 03:15, 18 September 2005 Classicjupiter2 (Talk | contribs) removed groups that are not notable and also had articles deleted here on Wikipedia."

This deleted a list of groups who are active in the area of surrealism and I thought could be of interest to readers of wikipedia.

Can you give a bit more depth into what you consider "notable" and "not notable" and about deleted articles : created by who, deleted by who, why ?

If they were active in the area of surrealism, then the articles would not have been deleted. You need to talk to all of the Wikipedians who voted to delete the articles. You are more than welcome to do the research here on Wikipedia to investigate. In regards to your question of what is and what is not notable, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. All the best.Classicjupiter2 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of work this weekend, will write back either tomorrow (Sunday) or Monday. Jeremy J. Shapiro 12:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am user "Nick Gabrichidze, friend of the artist Nick Gabrichidze. Thanks for positive response about "Chess revolution". Unforchantly we prefer to stop actively contributing to wiki or even taking this site seriously. Obviously this resource is turned into of of the numerous abusive, user unfriendly web chats with low credibility. Pity. what else.. If you want to illustrate surrealism with nick Gabrichidze work please do so, however there is a big chance of being called "sock-puppet", pissed on, abused and accused in violating a copyright laws.

Anyway take care; also try this links http://www.livejournal.com/users/gabrichidze/

http://www.expatica.com Dutch section

or

http://www.angelfire.com/ia/gabrichidze

Welcome

Nice meeting you Gabrichidze 22 : 44, 22 Oct 2005(Central European time)

notability of surrealist groups

ClassicJupiter2, while it's easy for me to prove the validity and noteworthiness of the surrealist groups you deleted (by way of all the good stuff contained on their websites), it will be difficult for you to prove their lack of notability. Of course you can delete those articles from wikipedia as they arise, but that's just not very scholarly. You don't feel slighted by any of these groups you are against, do you? Did you ever have any vanity pages of your own deleted, perchance? ;-)

I look forward to working with you in the surrealism article. It's one of the best articles in the entire wiki-site. --Sam Wegtor 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if it was so, "easy for you to prove the validity and noteworthiness of the surrealist groups", then they would all have artilces here on Wikipedia. They do not because they are not notable and a total scam. An online blog from Portland does not make a group notable. It makes it a hobby and a clubhouse.Classicjupiter2 15:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ClassicJupiter2, your logic is circular, and you are simply trolling the surrealism article. I have reinserted the links. --Sam Wegtor 17:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my user-talk page. I no longer desire to talk to you. The non-notability of these, "groups" already has been settled by the VfD by the Wikipedia Community. They will only be removed. This encyclopedia is not a tool for the promotion of blogs and rants.Classicjupiter2 00:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VIVA EL SURREALISMO!!! --Sam Wegtor 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 16:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I apologize for not writing here sooner as I said I would. The reality is that right now I am going into a very heavy work week and have so much to prepare that my outside communication (and Wikipedia work)are of necessity quite limited. I do look forward to replying at greater length to your proposal/comment of about a week ago, but I confess that it might take me another ten days or two weeks to do it. This is one of the heaviest work periods of my year -- it happens every few months. I am glad, however, that you have realized that my attitude toward surrealism is positive rather than oppositional. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr.Shapiro, for your kind response. There is no hurry to engage discussion with me. Your schedule is very important and I respect that, along with your contributions to this article. When you do have the time, you are more than welcome on my talk page, anytime.Classicjupiter2 21:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

surrealist links

ClassicJupiter, last week you appeared to be ok with the links we had on the surrealism page, but then you deleted a good portion of them, especially the american ones. I firmly disagree with this and have added the links back. If you really feel so strongly about their non-verifiability, then I will have to argue that the individual artists are just as non-verifiable, and I will remove them too. Isn't there something that we can work out here, rather than just deleting everything? --Sam Wegtor 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealism

Hi Classicjupiter2 - let me first apologize for not getting back to you earlier. I was away for a bit and I did not see your important message until today. Is there anything I can do for you at the moment? --HappyCamper 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to file something at WP:RFCU, as I don't have the technical ability to check the accounts on Wikipedia. From a cursory glance, I have a feeling it would not be particularily useful information.

How about an archival of the talk page? It is filled with material unrelated to the article development on Wikipedia, and might be beneficial to relegate that to an archive. After that cleanup, I will issue some blocks if the posts continue as is. At the moment, I'm not too informed of what is going on, so I need to sit back and see what is happening in more detail. --HappyCamper 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a great idea, I am all for it.Classicjupiter2 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Franklin Rosemont with Andre Breton and Guy Debord (delete as applicable)

File:The Commissar Vanishes 1.jpg

Talk page

Hi Classicjupiter - how is the talk page since the massive archival? Let me know if anything further needs to be done. It seems that some of those accounts have ceased with activity... --HappyCamper 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me know if I can do anything for your userpage. --HappyCamper 03:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HappyCamper, things are going along fine. If I have any more problems, I will leave a note on your talk page! Thanks for all your help. If you can clear my talk page, on here, please do. I will really appreciate it!Classicjupiter2 23:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify...I'm not sure what you mean by "clear" - as in "delete"? I think I might do it for your userpage here, but for the talk page, I think I feel more comfortable archiving it instead. Does this sound good? --HappyCamper 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC0

Yes. I am all for archiving it, Thanks so much! I really appreciate it!Classicjupiter2 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]