Talk:Zazie/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Zazie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

You kind find other bits and pieces of my humble opinion at the bottom of this page

P. Petiot.

The problem with wikipedia is that it introduces a sort of reversibility in Time. which makes things run into circles... Did you notice ? Working with the computer is a never ending process - creative or not, depending on the way you use it, of course. Irreversibility is a precious thing indeed, particularily in the field of knowledge, because things should not be the same before or after something is known. Here they are. I fail to see what is the mechanism that would take care of this "detail"in the wikipedia approach. Most probably someone will tell me where the most basic laws of physics are taken into account in some way in the wikipedia process.

Maybe a careful reading of Ilya Prigogine's work would help. He got a Nobel Price, after all.

Pierre Petiot.

From Wikipedia, the free cycling ortho-pedia - no blame.

This article is about the german artist Zazie

- as well as just anything else :-).

For information about Queneau's novel, see Zazie in the metro.

"Tu causes tu causes, c'est tout ce que tu sais faire". Non. Non. ce n'est pas la Tour Eiffel, c'est le Sacré Coeur... :-)

Zazie (born Evi Moechel

- No kidding ! Since when a married woman can be born under her husband's name, dear weaky-ortho-pedia ? -

Zweibrücken, Saarland, Germany), is a German surrealist cyberartist

- a WHAT ? Did she write that ? Does "Digital" means "Cyber" in English ? -

Zazie, in English the term or prefix "cyber" in this context is essentially identical to "digital." --Daniel C. Boyer 18:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

currently living in Austria

- sorry dear, Zazie has a home not a "base" unlike the USA currently have in Cuba.

She creates digital images by manipulating digital photographs

- Sorry to interrupt again, I am so unpleasant, dear Ortho-weaky- pedia, but the part of digital photographies is not that big after all in zazie's work, why not mention other tools like Bryce and Poser ?

with software programs such as Adobe Photoshop

- please there is more to say about unvolontary commercial advertising here, dear weaky-pedia-ortho, she even happened to use freeware as well as open source software. Please ask the impacted people for further detail before writing if you care about details.

She has had several shows, won several awards, and exhibits all of her work online.

- Non Non. Not "all". There is some more on her hard disk. :-) -

The IEEE magazine Computer Graphics featured her work in the cover story of its May/June 2003 edition.

Zazie worked as a newspaper and magazine photographer for 15 years until devoting her attention to digital imagery in 1997.

In 1999 she joined the Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surréaliste (GPMS) (in English, "Paris Group of the Surrealist Movement"). However, in the tract "Du 'webisme' en ses œuvres mortes - Les pâles toquets de la toile" ("Of Webism in its Dead Works") the group wrongly criticized her participation in Webism without even asking her what her position actually was.

Additionally, she also co-signed the tract "Craven Destiny" with a couple of others wild surrealists, which some other more official surrealist entities apparently did not care about doing, might it be for reasons of SURR #4 "printed" cover or other details here and there, but that shall be made clearer later quite probably.

She won first place in the digital art category at Art Dept's 2003 International Art Contest (http://www.artdept.com.au/contest03/) for a piece she made using Bryce and Photoshop, entitled Planet X.

As regards intellectual and even artistic matters, Zazie never considered having any particular link with Webism, however she exhibits - OK, present grammatical tempse yet to be corrected apparently :-) We are so slow - extensively worldwide - don't be too pretentious, ortho-weaky-pedia, "worldwide" if you like but the www does not stand really for "The World", at least my kitchen is not aware of it -

as a Webist artist with Webism [1] (http://www.mikyo.com/webism/) founder Pygoya and Ingrid Kamerbeek.

As for commercial matters, her web site is under a Creative Commons Licence, her work is not for sale in any shop or gallery on the entire Internet. It is not for sale either in any such place outside of the Internet.

- Improving you are. :-) -

Zazie and Uly Paya of Austria organized the exhibition, 32 Bit Connection: Webism - Art connecting the World

- is Mr Doctorow to be considered as a webist artist too, dear Ortho-weaky-pedia ? Are you sure you read the whole thing correctly ? -

that featured works by eight artists from around the world that met over the Web that took place at Vienna Museumsquartier (MQ) between May 27 to June 12, 2004. I am not so sure about the actual ending date. Why not check ?

P. Petiot.

If the REAL people involved in such an incredible NOISE are still allowed to speak, I would like to make a couple of things clear.

First, people who are not the slightest involved with what is at stake, should avoid speaking of what they did not experience and hence cannot really understand. There is indeed a disagreement betweeen zazie and the Paris Group and another one - or the same - between myself and the Paris Group. However, this is the Paris Group, zazie and myself internal business, and no one on this planet is allowed to make ANY statement in our names on this subject. This has to be clear. Very very clear. And I think this is a simple matter of intellectual integrity. People who did not even care enough to simply ask Zazie what her position actually was, have nothing to do in such matters and should follow their usual ways and not care any longer about the Real, since they basically did not, ever. People who actually care about what may be at stake already know or will know of course as soon as they ask.

Second, in Surrealism, TRUTH is at stake. This seems to have slightly been forgotten here and there. Yet some errors can be made and some disagreements may appear. This is a normal part of the game. In this case, I think that the disagreement is not exactly about "Webism" - honestly, who cares... - but more about something actually quite different and somewhat deeper. I personally do not blame the Paris Group for their position, and I think that I understand the roots of such a position, although I certainly do not share it. That happens. I do not see where is the problem with such a situation. I disagree with, but of course respect the Paris Group position, as being the Paris Group own business to decide about, because any human group, surrealist or not, is entitled to do so.

This being said - and even written :-) - my personal advice would be, for once, the same as current commercial ads : "go create !". And if the irony in it is not well enough understood, that's not my problem.

Pierre Petiot.

Dear surrealists

Before you decide what a person thinks of anything WHY DO NOT YOU FIRST ASK HER what her opinion actually is ? Do you think the world is a wysiwyg place ? Are you as stupid as that.

How is it possible that simple human rights according to which any person may be heard is not barely applied by so said supporters of surrealism? Is dear Joseph Stalin the new example ?

You flesh of tabloïd journalists.

Is this is surrealism, then I am definitely ashamed of it.

Pierre Petiot.

From the article (Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:56, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC))

I must protest the unfair and unsubstantiated facts concerning this artist as a surrealist or anything to do with surrealism. It is not fair that Daniel C.Boyer is allowed to misuse the free platform of Wikipedia as a means of self-serving recognition for him and his friends. There appears to be a large amount of bandwidth and space on Wikipedia's webpages to Dan Boyer and his friends in the Surrealism categories and all it's surrealist links on the Wikipedia service. This woman, "Zazie" is a CyberArtist, that is a fact. A very good one too. She is extremely talented. However, with all due respect to the good lady, Zazie, it is open to debate on whether or not she deserves to be recognized as a surrealist, just because her friends in some paris group claim she is surrealist. It is a Fact that this, "Zazie" is involved in a movement called, "WEBISM" but she is not a surrealist in any current or historical context. I ask of the Wikipedia Community to please ask Dan Boyer to refrain from monopolizing this free encyclopedia by providing invalid and unsubstantiated claims that he and his friends are involved in Surrealism.

Working with the computer is a never ending creative process for me, that offers the greatest possible freedom imaginable in expressing dreams, nightmares and visions. -- Zazie

If you are going to keep saying this article should be deleted (I think it clearly shouldn't be made into a user page as to the best of my knowledge Zazie isn't a user of Wikipedia) list it on Votes for deletion rather than making your point by repeatedly reverting article content. I think that is the real discussion you want to have (deleting this page, not this page's content). Correct me if I'm wrong. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Dan, Dan, my friend, Zazie is a brilliant cyberartist. I do not want this article to be deleted,I can agree that it should stay but only mentioning her as a cyberartist who works in digital art. She is recognized as part of the movement known as WEBISM with Ingrid and Pygoya. If you are going to claim that she is a surrealist, then how many other titles or movements is she (your close friend) and your friends going to stake a claim to? Dan, Please be fair. By the way, you are a very talented artist. Experimental.

The claim about Webism is irrelevant as you have not even asserted (only implied) that participation in or association with Webism and participation in surrealism are mutually exclusive. I would be very interested in hearing why this is the case. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't exactly get 24.168.95.76's point about removing my disambiguation... --Valmi 23:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, help needed please. I'll stay very calm... I'm relatively new to open-content, and it is the first time I have to deal with a case like that. So what should I do now? --Valmi 02:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Valmi

The best advice that I can give you in regards to 24.168.95.76 is to understand the position of this person's sincere argument to maintain integrity within the surrealism related pages on Wikipedia. First, I recommend reading, "REVOLUTIONARIES WITHOUT REVOLUTION" by Andre Thirion, it is one of the best works on Surrealism written by someone inside the movement from the very beginning. In regards to this Zazie, she is bogus. I believe in fairness, but this lady is not a surrealist. Please read the WEBISM Manifesto by the Webist Founder PYGOYA and you will see that it is completely hostile to the principles of surrealism and very antagonistic to it's goals as well. This person 24.168.95.76 has the right idea on this lady. I would revert the article until it maintains truth that Zazie is not a surrealist. We need to see a statement by Evi Moechel denouncing Webism, then I can see the light on this lady. If you read Thirion's book, you could gain an strong insight into the motivating forces behind surrealism and Zazie's, "Commodities" are completely void of anything revolutionary whatsoever, but that is how I feel. Peace.

Surrealism

This comment is written in response to the disputed tag, which I think is regard to whether Zazie is a surrealist or not. (In the future, please mention what the dispute tag is about in the Talk page, it makes things a lot easier.) I quick disclaimer. I have no knowledge of Zazie or surrealism other than the past hour or so of research. Ok, a couple of things here,

Many web pages list her as surrealist.
Zazie herself self-describes herself as a "vivid surrealist"

Therefore, to not talk about surrealism with regard to her is going to be non-encyclopedic. You could say something like, Zazie describes herself, and is sometimes categorized, as a Surrealist, and she was once involved with GPMS, but she has since left and many critics (or people within the movement, or whatever) don't view her as part of the movement. I think that would be sufficiently NPOV and also encyclopedic.

Zazie has not left the GPMS or surrealism. And as far as I am aware it is not true that "many critics" don't regard her as part of the movement; the only assertions I've ever heard to this effect are from the couple of anonymous IPs claiming this on this page. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

btw, after having a quick look at the definition of surrealist on wikipedia, I don't see how she's not a surrealist just because she sells her work (or is it more than that?) Is there somewhere that I didn't see that describes surrealists as not selling their work?
-Vina 07:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must honestly put it that my first interest when I wrote this weird statement (she might be part of what might be, etc., (disputed)) was that it wouldn't be reverted (see history) while still being factual and NPOV. It's the first time I get involved in a dispute (a utter bad luck since I wasn't trying to write something about Zazie anyway) and I don't know how it could be worked out.

Now I like your statement, that I could further modify to please Daniel and 24.168.92.117 as

Zazie describes herself, and is sometimes categorized, as a Surrealist, and she was once involved with GPMS although it isn't clear whether she still is, and many critics (or people within the movement, or whatever) don't view her, or indeed the GPMS, as part of the movement.

Would you, Daniel and 24.168.92.117, agree to having something like that and keeping it unchanged (and unreverted)? --Valmi 17:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. I would ask 24.168.92.117 for any evidence whatsoever about any claim other than his bald statement that Zazie is no longer involved with GPMS, and I question whether "many critics" have indeed questioned her being part of the movement. Certainly it is not true that many people within the movement view the GPMS as not being part of the movement. The furthest I think we could go is Zazie describes herself, and is often categorized as, a Surrealist, and is involved with GPMS, though there have been some minoritarian claims that Zazie, and the GPMS, are not part of the surrealist movement (and then the basis of those claims could perhaps be detailed), though perhaps even this gives an undue weight to a claim that as far as I am aware is only being made by 24.168.92.117. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point is that you guys need to come to an agreement of some sort, unless you are prepared to go on having an low intensity edit war until you both die of old age. :) btw, is minoritarian is actually a word? -Vina 00:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, but I don't see how I can go any farther when I have definitely not seen any other allegations that she is no longer part of GPMS and the accusations about her and GPMS certainly do not originate from anyone in the movement. There could be a little tweaking in my version, but his version grossly mischaracterises the extent of a controversy that seems to exist in his mind alone. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To put words in his mouth, 24.x seems to think that Surrealism is a (for the lack a better term) collectivist art movement, and that blatant capitalism is against Surrealism, therefore Zazie, webism, etc. that actually tries to sell their work is not Surrealism. I don't see mention of it in the Surrealism article on Wikipedia. Is any of this a commonly held (even if a minority) view? and how about changing 'many' to 'some'? -Vina 17:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, surrealism is not an art movement at all, though perhaps 24.x belives it to be. If this is the argument he is making, and it is spelled out in the Zazie article as such at the end of the article, and the word "some" was used, depending on the phraseology, I would not be averse to this. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the below text, which was posted to the article by User:83.65.5.18 ~leif 11:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As regards intellectual and even artistic matters, I never considered having any particular link with Webism. No one is allowed to speak in my name, here or elsewhere. I do not allow anyone to decide about what I think or to state what my opinions are without my approval. As regards commercial matters, my web site is under a Creative Commons Licence, my work is not for sale in any shop or gallery on the entire Internet. It is not for sale either in any of such places outside of the Internet.

Zazie

This text is not suitable for wikipedia. You can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more info, but in a nutshell we're writing a neutral encyclopedia and your first person language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I hope that you will not be discouraged by the removal of your words from the article page, and will continue to edit here. If you feel there are problems with this article, you are welcome and invited to change it. ~leif 11:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

MERDE !!!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Enough, enough, Enough ! Enough lies, enough gossips and enough of such stupidites. This sort of discussion is empty. Once for all, there is no way that anyone is allowed to decide what I think or do not think better than myself. The same stands as regards zazie. If such behaviors as what is happening here, are not intellectual nothingness - not even speaking of surrealism - then I am both the Pope and the Queen of England. Remove or add what you want, it is pure used toilet paper as far as I am concerned.

If we say a clear NO about "Webism", then is it NO and not yes. The best source of information about what we think or do not think is what we think. Discussions about what we do not think are what they are... That is, discussions about what we do not think. People who are in line with giving free commercial ads to Webism may of course go on.

Pierre PETIOT

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie"

MERDE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Enough, enough, Enough ! Enough lies, enough gossips and enough of such stupidites. This sort of discussion is empty. Once for all, there is no way that anyone is allowed to decide what I think or do not think better than myself. The same stands as regards zazie. If such behaviors as what is happening here, are not intellectual nothingness - not even speaking of surrealism - then I am both the Pope and the Queen of England. Remove or add what you want, it is pure used toilet paper as far as I am concerned.

If we say a clear NO about "Webism", then is it NO and not yes. The best source of information about what we think or do not think is what we think. Discussions about what we do not think are what they are... That is, discussions about what we do not think. People who are in line with giving free commercial ads to Webism may of course go on.

Pierre PETIOT

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie"

Why is Pierre posting the same above post twice?

Pierre, what is at stake? What happened to the article? Pierre, Wikipedia is a fantastic and wonderful encyclopedia service for the people and by the people. It is just so helpful! Why are you so upset over the Wikipedia article on Evi Moechel?24.168.66.27 23:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's because you always repeat the same sentences, again and again, Keith Wigdor... :-) "Wikipedia is a fantastic and wonderful encyclopedia service for the people and by the people". And Keith Wigdor is a good user that only spreads lies everywhere to make the attempts of people working hard here as ridiculous as he hinslef is. This is plain and visible. You cannot hide, Keith Wigdor because you run into circles. Your are fully obsessional, and that's wuite visible.

We have enough.

P. Petiot.

Summary

To summarise Petiot's last intervention, I would simply say: "Tu causes, tu causes, c'est tout c'que tu sais faire." This not being targetted at anyone in particular as much as to everybody here in general. --Anonymous

That's what I actually meant :-)

I am currently thinking of removing my web page of the publicly available WWW, explaining that I do that because the Wikipedia project is a threat for my freedom as regards deciding whether I can to be famous or not. I DO NOT want to be famous. I do not want to be known. I just want to share and to think. This cannot any longer be done due to the existence of wikipedia. I still have to decide about How I am going to reach both communication and hiding. Yet, as soon as I can, the only page publicly available on my web site shall be a protest against the existence of wikipedia as it is. When this is done, my e-mail shall still be available for my friends.

There is no need for any "free" encyclopedia" the WWW fulfills all needs as regards this point. Adding to it is nothing else than building a very very ulplesant sort of power.

Unless any other advice or opinion comes here to say that I may be wrong, I currently think that people should start organising against this threat which has obviously nothing to do with knowledge at all. What knowledge can you find in articles that are changing every 30 seconds ?

The only understanding I have now left about Wikipedia and the principles it uses is simple : FIGHT IT.

Pierre Petiot.

Here is my understanding of what I experienced =======

This is my answer regarding the warning private message I read about my so-said VANDAL behavior. YOU are vandals of the WWW, Wikipedia. YOU are vandals of the Free Software principles. YOU should disappear. YOU are not needed. YOU do not respect anything.

But well. YOu created a POwer and.

OK, OK, I understand, Dear Contents Owner. Since I met you finally.

I understand your point and bow where ordered. No problem. I am highly educated enough. I understand.

We are all in a learning process, aren't we ?

I see YOUR process now. And you are what I expected. You are quite obviously heading to Hell. You are building Hell.

There is no way out and no end to Wikipedia, considering the capacity of current disks.

One real possibility as regards irreversibility is to be banned. Banned from answering bu NOT from having an article in this Monstruous Place. Another one is pure and simple denounciation, I saw that. Behind lies the attempt of indirectly banning from the internet the people who use dynamic IPs and do not agree with your "project". I also understood that.

If you want to get out, then you should not get in. But of course, you cannot choose to get in or not. Wikipedia decides about that. And you cannot choose to get out either. There is no way for corrections. Wikipedia cannot be ignored that's all there is to say. Good. That's a Power.

As soon as wikipedia puts a hand on you, you are immediately connected to the "Universal" opinion about what you do, think, eat, drink, etc... Yet THIS has just some more locally proven to lead to "some excess" in Germany, China, USSR, USA, and most places, where the universal opinion ruled or still rules.

"Democratic" or not, open or not, where this leads has a quite well known name : facism.

I do not mean that you are a facist of course, Dear Contents Owner. That is certainly not true. I just mean that this is where you are heading to.

You are building universal surveillance of all web sites in the hands of the masses. Millions of deaths apparently did not suffice, you still want to add to it.

Besides this wikipedia project is totally redundant. When I need a free encyclopedia, the WWW is there, without the nasty drawbacks of Wikipedia. The WWW is so obvious, so immediate, it was correctly engineered and built for that.

YOU are redundant, Wikipedia. The emptiness of you thinking and of your project, is obvious. Where you are heading to is also obvious. Universal Surveillance of everyone by everyone.

Yes, I understand. Fine, you built a little bit of a Power I admit it. Keep it as long as it lasts since the one you are building will crush you.

But please, once in a while, attempt to think.

I hope you are fully aware about how deeply I am convinced of the approach. I bow don't ever expect more from me.

Pierre Petiot.

Wikipedia, your FREE shortcut to universal facism

"Hourrah ! Cornes au cul, vive le Père Ubu ! Hourrah ! Cornes au cul, vive le Père Ubu !" Alfred Jarry

Pierre, why are you mad at wikipedia?

Why are you mad at wikipedia?24.168.66.27 21:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am mad with you Wigdor ! You are a troll and a stalker (you are stalking me for 3 years now) that´s the only thing where you have got some skills.... Please stop spreading lies, i left Webism already before you have got aware of it. Take a look at the actual members list, you will not find me. The only websites where i am present (concerning Webism) are ancient projects. To what degree one can be that stupid and boring ?? Really stunning.... Please keep away from me !

Zazie

Why is Zazie attacking the user 24? and why does she make false allegations and use this service to attack others?

Hey Zazie, chill out! This is an encyclopedia service for the people and by the people. You appear to have some kind of issue with this Wigdor, may I give you some advice and please do not wrongly attack and slander him here or anyone else. From what I see on the internet, Wigdor is being abused by your comrades(surrealcoconut ring a bell Zazie?), and you have a history of abusing those who you disagree with as evident by your above post, and this Pierre Petiot vandalized the wikipedia article. Please do not allege stalking when you go and threaten innocent artists like Brave Destiny, read your words.63.169.104.2 20:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why does Pierre call wikipedia, "orthopedia"? That is not right! This is a great service!63.169.104.2 20:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=============================================================================

Keith Wigdor,

On whatever false identity to you pretend to hide, it is always easy to detect you based on your lies. You are even so stupid that you forget to hide when taking another identity and speak in a way that does not even hide you. You do not even notice. You are playing "the good user" while droping your lies everywhere going against the (questionable or not) targets of the creators and of the users of this medium.

You know very well this article is a trap, that we cannot remove or correct. All the above is so falsely "innocent" and "naïve" that it is plainly ironical. This is visible just as is visible that you are using the weaknesses of this medium for your own sake. But Keith WHAT exactly are you trying to take a revenge about ? Will you explain that ?

Only a mad person can run in circles as you do. Are you not aware of that ?

We ask you to stop that. Here as everywhere else.

P. Petiot.

Pierre, why are you mad at wikipedia?

Why are you mad at wikipedia?24.168.66.27 21:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am mad with you Wigdor ! You are a troll and a stalker (you are stalking me for 3 years now) that´s the only thing where you have got some skills.... Please stop spreading lies, i left Webism already before you have got aware of it. Take a look at the actual members list, you will not find me. The only websites where i am present (concerning Webism) are ancient projects. To what degree one can be that stupid and boring ?? Really stunning.... Please keep away from me !

Zazie

Why is Zazie attacking the user 24? and why does she make false allegations and use this service to attack others?

Hey Zazie, chill out! This is an encyclopedia service for the people and by the people. You appear to have some kind of issue with this Wigdor, may I give you some advice and please do not wrongly attack and slander him here or anyone else. From what I see on the internet, Wigdor is being abused by your comrades(surrealcoconut ring a bell Zazie?), and you have a history of abusing those who you disagree with as evident by your above post, and this Pierre Petiot vandalized the wikipedia article. Please do not allege stalking when you go and threaten innocent artists like Brave Destiny, read your words.63.169.104.2 20:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)63.169.104.2 21:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why does Pierre call wikipedia, "orthopedia"? That is not right! This is a great service!

Why does Pierre call wikipedia, "orthopedia"? That is not right! This is a great service! 63.169.104.2 20:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)63.169.104.2 21:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keith Wigdor,

I am mad about Wikipedia, because you are using this medium for making nasty things thaings that its creators cannot even understand so mentally sick and mean you are. And you are perfectly aware of that.

You have been destroying just any Internet medium you posted into You have been making a mess on alt.surrealism You have been making a mess on Portland Indymedia and most probably in other places too You are currently making a mess of Wikipedia You have been spreading false news everywhere. You have been making entirely false photoshop montages to impress people and spread lies You complain about being harassed on e-mail and you are screaming that you are a victim on just any internet medium that allows you but YOU have been harassing us permanently for 3 years, this although we refused to play the sick little childish game you play and although we did not answer once to you in these 3 years. You are systematically using various identities to make Internet administrators believe that you are several people.

You apparently do not take properly the medecine that your doctor orders for your mental health. You are a mentally sick person Wigdor, and you know that very well. You know that you should not behave that way. You do not even realize that your games may be dangerous for families and children. You do not even realize either that your doctor may be held for responsible for what you are doing. Do you want him to send you in an hospital, Keith ? Clearly, you are not a responsible person, Keith Wigdor. You should it that into account and stop playing the game of "the evil surrealist". Zorro is not a real person, don't you know ?

Clearly, no people with a sane mind would possibly do what you are doing : throwing lies during THREE entire years on any media about people who did not do you any harm at all, except by refusing to answer your continuing provocations.

YOU are the ONLY reason why I had to behave in such a nasty way on this medium just to remove your permanent lies, coming again and again I had to find a way to make administrators aware that someone is behaving in a nasty way on this medium.

You are the reason why Wikipedia threatened me of being banned, and you are fully aware of that.

You should understand that you are also harassing the Internet administrators everywhere you go and play such nasty games. They did not do anything to you, and we did not either.

We require that you stop such games about us on the entire internet. Also, keep in mind that what you are doing is against the laws, against the laws everywhere, Keith Wigdor.

Pierre Petiot.

Why is Pierre Petiot using wikipedia to attack others and wikipedia?

Why is Pierre Petiot using wikipedia to attack others and wikipedia? Pierre, please stop being so mean and vicious. Your above post is not proper. This is a great encyclopedia service and very helpful for the public.63.169.104.2 21:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that maybe

83.65.5.18 is probably this Pierre who is mad at wikipedia and this wigdor guy. Pierre please do not be mad and please no more attacks.63.169.104.2 21:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that...

it is Keith Wigdor who is propagating his own mess world wide on Indymedia sites and everywhere he can:

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/80531_comment.php#81365

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/4657_comment.php

http://cvilleindymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=893&condense_comments=false

http://maritimes.buffaloimc.org:8080/news/2004/09/8303.php

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/08/296653.html

http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/05/0140222&mode=thread&threshold=0

http://www.usenet-binaries.com/search.asp?cad=ak

http://rogueimc.org/en/2004/09/3242.shtml

Where you helping a free encyclopedia,there Keith ? Who would think that you could possibly be using free communication media for the sake of your own promotion ? :-)

P. Petiot

Dear Pierre Petiot...

Please do not use this Wikipedia service to attack the surrealist Keith Wigdor. This discussion page is about the cyberartist Zazie and the facts regarding her work. The goal here is to present facts as they exist and this woman Zazie has extensively exibited and participated in the Webism Art Movement. The issue concerning her current detachment from the Webism art movement is noted, but she was very much an active participant (and organizer) in the Webism movement as stated in the facts! If Zazie (or you) is attempting to manipulate the record, or use those in the benefit of how she(or you) desires to be presented to the world, then she should have never been so active in Webism in the first place. All of a sudden she breaks off all contact and involvment with Webism and Ingrid and Pygoya? If this is true, what does it say about her credibility concerning the integrity of her work? Either way, that is not the issue here. The issue here is the facts. The record shows the facts concerning Zazie's extensive involvement and participation in Webism and there is no denying her past involvement! If there is an article on the subject of Zazie, then let the record show all of her work (as documented in the past by her no less). She did participate in the Webism movement, that is her in all those pictures online! History will show Zazie's extensive involvement in Webism, after all, she was very much involved in the movement. Now she is not.63.169.104.2 20:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggesting mediation

Pierre, Keith, Daniel and everybody else that is involved in this dispute: Would you like to consider using the |mediation services offered by WikiPedia? I have not been following the dispute very closely so I don't know what is everybody's stand on the issues involved, but if one of you would like to make a request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation I believe it may help this article and Wikipedia as a whole. :-) --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ✒]] 01:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)