User talk:Theresa knott/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

o.User talk:Theresa knott/archive 1 User talk:Theresa knott/archive 2

Contents

[edit] Case of Theresa Knott and Mr. Natural Health

Case referred to the arbitration committee by Jimbo Wales on 6 Feb 2004, 15:15 UTC. Four arbitrators voted to accept this case: Fred Bauder, Martin Harper, Sean Barrett, and UninvitedCompany. The case is thus accepted for arbitration on 6 Feb 2004, 19:43. The arbitration committee will make a final decision no later than 13 Feb 2004, 19:43. Martin 19:50, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brief statements by User:Theresa knott and User:Mr-Natural-Health and links to evidence relevant to this matter may be placed at Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health. Fred Bauder 01:15, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

(your prior request is at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Mr-Natural-Health for safe-keeping, if you wish to reuse it in some way). Martin 15:14, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

d==Cooking a turkey== I noticed in the edit history of Cooking a turkey that you mentioned that the roast turkey is normally not an entree. To a US writer, the entree is the main course, so the turkey is the entree. Since it has a different meaning in English English, replacing the word entree or deleting it as you did in that case is a good idea. Jamesday 13:13, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gahhh ... Doubtless you were right to apologise. It is the practical, sensible thing to do. But, just sometimes, I catch myself thinking that we ought to be allowed to call a spade a spade once in a while. (BTW, while posting this I removed a long rant that you probably couldn't be bothered reading. It's there in the page history if you feel a need to look it over.) Tannin 10:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite right! I woke up to that myself a moment ago. Obviously, it's time I got some sleep! Tannin

[edit] Mr-Natural-Health

Ms Knott, though I realize that it is quite late insofarasmuch as the matter of your case with Mr-Natural-Health is concerned, I should like to inform you that there exists an Office of Members' Advocates, the members of whom may, if you wish, represent you before the Arbitration Committee. -- Emsworth 23:04, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too late in this case as arbitrition has finished, but I shall bear it in mind in the future. theresa knott 08:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

We just got permission to use two iridology charts from someone I emailed, so you don't need to draw one yourself now. I'll go and upload them.  :) fabiform | talk 16:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great! theresa knott 17:03, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By the way: "18:57, 12 Feb 2004 Pakaran unblocked "Irismeister" (Jimbo blocked this user "for 24 hours" over 2 days ago, and never unblocked him)" I was wondering where he had got to. fabiform | talk 19:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Never fear, talk, I'm here :) Sincerely irismeister 18:38, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Did you get my email this morning ? theresa knott 19:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Lol, no I only just read it (I only check that email address every day or so). I'm one of those incurably honest people who even buys tickets on the train when there's no conductor. I don't suppose it did any harm though (unlike not buying train tickets - support the rail networks!). fabiform | talk 19:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just checked Talk:Iridology when I saw it in Recent Changes. Irismeister has sent you to Coventry. I just about died laughing when I read that.  :) fabiform | talk 12:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Me too. He has been following me around wikipedia for weeks now so being sent to coventry for a month would be a nice rest and a chance to get some "work" done in peace.theresa knott 22:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Theresa the brave

Your user name should be changed by acclamation to that. In my opinion, the demeaning and sexist abuse you endure (from an user I won't name) in the name of preserving the intergrity of Wikipedia is worthy of the highest esteem among your fellow editors. -- Decumanus 12:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! May you be rid of such abuse soon and permanently. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Highly seconded :) Dysprosia 22:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, it's very nice of you to say so. It is the support from my fellow wikipedians that keeps me sane when dealing with poeple like this. It seems, if our friend is to be believed, that I will have a short respite from the abuse for a while anyways. theresa knott 22:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, just in case you hadn't yet, I checked for "Daniel Armand Jipa" on the Web and couldn't find this name at all, nor was there any "Daniel Jipa" save one obscure Romanian hockey player, so I believe the plausible claims at Talk:Iridology are in fact untrue, as you no doubt suspected. Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I checked too. I'm as cetain as I can be that he is fibbing else I would never have made the comment. theresa knott 23:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The next step is to send a police officer to have me fingerprinted. I am not on your Google search therefore I don't exist : )  : ))  : ) BTW, what has sex to do with it, and who is a sexist in the first place : ) irismeister 23:59, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Darn it. The months are getting shorter and shorter. When I was a kid a week was an age, Christmas and summer holidays took forever to arrive and a month was 28 -31 days. theresa knott 00:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This situation with Irismeister is getting beyond a joke. Shall I place a request on "requests for arbitration"? I'd be perfectly happy to be the named participant if one is necessary (but not in mediation, as I think it would be pointless). What do you think?  :) fabiform | talk 23:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would you email me with any points/incidents you especially want me to be aware of? Do you think Jimbo will be willing to pass this to the arbitration committee? fabiform | talk 23:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't have access to my email over the weekend, but I do it on Monday. Gives me tomorrow to think about things anyway - there is probably a lot!
Sure, I need time to structure my reasons in my head too. Plus the arbitration committee is busy with three cases right now, so even if we rushed, I don't think they'd even consider hearing us until after wik/anthony/etc. fabiform | talk 00:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've made my request here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.  :) Thanks for the emails, if this gets heard by the committee then we'll get a chance to set out all the examples of his awful behaviour. All requests for arbitration have to go via Jimbo Wales at the moment, I understand, so I'm going to place a short request on his talk page and invite you or any of the other main people involved to sign it as well if you like. fabiform | talk 14:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's taking a while to sort through all of his contributions for the evidence page! I think that you (and others?) have more of an idea of what POV edits need to be examined, I didn't follow that too closely. And you might well remember incidents that I don't, especially since you've worked together on so many more articles (against your will, since he's been following you around of course). It's kind of satisfying to see so many of his rude remarks from iridology one after the other on the page. Hopefully all this will be enough to convince people who've not encountered him just how difficult he is to work with.  :) fabiform | talk 18:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've found some POV edits on articles neither of us have been involved in. I've only made a very brief mention of the POV problems we had with him and iridology, I think you have a better grasp on those than I do. The page is getting a bit long, I'd better not add nay more I suppose, if anyone else is going to have room to contribute! I haven't linked to his user page and talk page yet, but I wasn't sure where to put them or what to say about them. There's certainly a lot of ranting on them. fabiform | talk 23:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With regards to the irismeister evidence page, I agree it needs some refactoring to be actually readable, but sadly I don't really have the energy or inclination to do it right now. The arbitrators (or at least a few of us) did read the page in the state it was in yesterday, so the evidence has been noted, and hasn't been completely lost amidst the current rather disorganized state of the page. I'll post a message to the arbitrators to list to see if anyone has free time today to undertake reorganizing it, or if not I may try tomorrow. I do agree you likely shouldn't be the one to reorganize it. --Delirium 20:29, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thank youtheresa knott 20:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration issues

Hi Theresa,

I want to invite you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters that have come up in the last few days at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. Please see the intro paragraph of Boris Yeltsin to see an example of what's been going on with articles on Russians and places in Russia....

Also, if you haven't already do so, you might want to take a look through Cantus's contributions.

Right now, the main participants in the discussion are the two people who've been changing the formats of intro paragraphs of articles -- both of whom have been here for less than a month and seem rather uninterested in other people's points of view. Many thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:57, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adivice or Mediation Requested

I wrote the Antebellum article, which is still largely intact with improvements by two other users. Recently a user, with only an ISP of 12.7.120.9 to identify him/her, changed the text of the article to whites in the U.S. South rather than U.S. South and from can be offensive to some Americans to offensive to most Americans. I have reviewed the article and want to change the phrase is looked back on with nostalgia to can be. I noticed the latter problem after my original post on the Antebellum talk page, but the user launched into a personal attack before I could post it.

I write personalized synopsis of the articles I initiate or signifigantly edit on my talk page. The user has taken what I wrote about the antebellum article "one of my favorite architectural and historic periods," and has used it to call me a racist in all but name and a supporter of slavery. The antebellum period was the time when America had the first flourishing of non-eurocentric culture and was not unique to the South. It includes the novels of Nathaniel Hawthorne, the speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. The styles of Monticello and Mount Vernon were widely copied and improved upon throughout the South. Many inovations such as elevated ceilings and verandas were distinctly African contributions.

The user has also ignored an above synopsis about a confederate general I added which says "my opinion of him isn't polite." I have also added articles on a Major Civil Rights Leader, a Civil Rights Organization, an African Queen who I state on my User Page as being an "often ignored major historical figure." I have posted a neutrality dispute to the article, unfortunately because of the user's personal attacks it has also become a User Conflict. Therefore I do not think it would be appropriate for me to edit the article, under the current circumstances.

I think you would be expertly qualified to mediate this, the only other result would be an article war and I do not wish to be drawn into one that utilizes personal attacks. All of the other users I have had discussions with are Americans and I think it would be best for someone with a detached view and experience with dealing with difficult users. I realize this is a lot to ask from someone who has already taken so much of this type of abuse. Please notify me if you accept to become a mediator, or have any advice.

-JCarriker 05:39, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Antebellum! -JCarriker 10:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome theresa knott 11:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have made some more edits to the Antebellum page, I would like you to review them and post any commnets on the talk page, which I have also edited.
-JCarriker 05:50, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
Another favour if possible, I aquired this image from a friend who told me it is from the Texas Parks and Wildlife and is in the Public Domain. When I went to get a photo for another picture from the state site I read the policy myself and the State of Texas does not have a public domain policy. Please delete the Image:Caddolilies.jpg as soon as possible. I am trying to get permission for another pic of Caddo Lake from a local source as I did with the Image:Bridge_in_Venice.jpg. This is somewhat embarising but I feel it merits immediate attention.

-JCarriker 09:13, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK I've done that for you. theresa knott 09:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks once again! -JCarriker 09:39, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you remove items from VfD after only 3 days? --Wik 14:03, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Theresa - about "electrical microphone"... this page his been started by somebody simply playing around (IP 194.203.111.33) and since I couldn't recall there being any microphones which were not electrical (I might be mistaken) I didn't think of a redirect being an option, so I put it up on VfD (I know it's large, I followed the discussion, one of the reasons I'm here on this page right now). --Palapala 21:20, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow you. If all microphones are electrical then a redirect from electrical microphone to microphone makes perfect sense. Perhaps you are thinking of disambiguation pages ? Anyway don't sweat it, i just get irked now and then. I put the comment in to remind everyone (not just you) to consider other options firsttheresa knott 23:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Medicine

I've had a go at reorganising and tidying the Support for and concerns about alternative medicine, Science and alternative medicine and History of alternative medicine sections of Alternative medicine at User:MykReeve/Alternative medicine.

Given your involvement with the article with Mr-Natural-Health, I'd appreciate your input before I post it to the actual article. - MykReeve 22:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look-over. I shifted it to Alternative medicine before I made the changes you suggested on my talk page, so they can be easily audited. I think it reads better now than when it had the list of points in support... - MykReeve 15:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's much better. Btw I 've jut read your userpage - 'ow come you don't tauk wiff a cockney haccent then? You ain't too posh or summit are yer? ;-) theresa knott 15:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

I don't think it's appropriate to vote and nominate. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Davide Mana

I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

Any theories regarding the recent disappearance of our mutual friend? I've been trying to figure it out and can't (not that I'm wasting too much time on it, but it does seem a little curious). Anyway, glad to see you now appear to be free of trolls and are able to do even more of your excellent editing! Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 19:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

it's weird isn't it. I think he realised he'd probably get banned so decided to leave of his own will beforehand. theresa knott 22:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. I believe that he's looking to bait someone into giving him permission to demand my de-adminship on Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. How lovely. I hope the AC finishes deliberating soon -- I find it curious that the matter of Plautus, accepted later than that of our mutual friend (and less urgent, as Plautus was banned until their deliberations ended), is finished first. I hope it's not an omen -- I'd hate to think all this ends with a slap on the wrist. Jwrosenzweig 17:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soap bubble

Dear Theresa, i was wondering if you can honour this article with one of your nice ilustrations. I nominated this for Featured articles and it was suggested that a few images could improve it. If your not in the mood, just ignore me. Cheers, Muriel 10:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. I've drawn some diagrams and put them into my sandbox, I'll amend the article later today theresa knott
They look great! Thanks! Muriel 12:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you like them theresa knott 15:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They do look great! Would it be possible to make one which showed a beam of light being split into it's separate colours, and producing one of the colour effects mentioned in the article. Something a bit like Image:Rainbow1.png? As Muriel said, please ignore the request if you want!  :) fabiform | talk 12:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring the request, but i can't really see what you had in mind. For a rainbow, dispersion of the light is the thing that causes the effect. For a thin films however, dipersion is a complication, but not the cause of the effect. The colours are caused by destuctive interference of selective wavelengths.(well at least that's how I understand it theresa knott 15:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Er, now I've read the captions you've put with the images on soap bubble I see that my request was redundant. You'd already done what I was hoping for, I just didn't understand the diagrams when I first saw them, whoops.  :) fabiform | talk 16:09, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your help

Since you are helping me out today, I was wondering if I can ask you to review Wikipedia:Columbia Encyclopedia article titles and all its subpages which have been listed on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements and I added to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions to get a final look before removal. (It was also on VfD for a time). The concensus is to delete the entire set and I planned to work on that today. Can you review it and let me know what you think? Thanks - Texture 18:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I personally didn't think there was any need to delete, but others disagreed. Anyway proper process was followed so everythinkg AOK. theresa knott 22:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ta

Thanks for zapping those 2 Alnwick Garden things. Nevilley 00:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving Wiki

I will probably be leaving wikipedia soon and I wanted to thank you for being one of the few wikipedians that made me feel like I was part of the community. My decision is not yet final but probable, if you have any reasons why I should reconsider please post them on my talk page. I am currently looking for a good home, or postion on a user watchlist, for my contributions many of which are not monitored by anyone else. You can find a complete list on my user page, please post any you are interested in on my talk page so I can see which ones still need homes on watchlists.

Deepest Thanks,

Jay Carriker

JCarriker 07:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I will consider a holiday but I must finish the U.S. Regions Project first.

--JCarriker 04:32, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have decided to stay. After raping up a few loose ends I will take a week long holiday in early April form the Wiki.
--JCarriker 06:01, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ?!

Thank goodness you protected Dissolution of the Monasteries; all the reverting was clogging up RC --Merovingian ↕ Talk 14:46, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

PS. Why didn't I think of that?

I dunno. We3 still need to keep an eye open in case they rty another page theresa knott 14:49, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know you're just doing your job by deleteing two completely unrelated pages: informational difference and fractional paradigm.

I was wondering what a consensus was. I know now that it's four votes.

It is certainly strange that we are deleting entries in an online encycopedia that a written encyclopedia, specialized on the given field of study, would surely accept.

But then again, it did get four negative votes beyond the request. The voters were unfamiliar with the terms, I guess. Does that make them any less real? Apparently so. What can you do. That's the way we human beings work. Apparently these voters are considered smarter than the college professors who teach their students about these subjects that supposedly don't exist. Apparently IEEE is wrong and Wile E. Heresiarch is right. Well, Wile sure has his work cut out for him: he has a lot of books to rewrite, and a lot of books to burn.

I'm just infomring you, for what it's worth, of my irritation. I also get kind of depressed by this sort of thing. But I am not blaming you for any thing. You're just doing your job. After all, they were four(+1) votes. Kevin Baas 20:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Self-control

Theresa, you are an adult and you MUST control your anger when you judge anything "irismeister". What looks vanity to you is only a POV to all of us, experts in the field. You can't put under the carpet twenty years of research and a whole group only because you hunt irismeisters in your spare time! Find an alternative phrasing, but do not delete the icing on the cake of iridology - the fact that it is the only AM which HAS a physiological explanation. I understand you can not abstain from the cut-and-protect cycle, and that physiology is outside your area of competence. But pretending to hunt vanity wherever you see my name, does not do you a service and hardly qualifies you as a NPOV editor ! We all lose time playing the game you like most - irismeister 00:27, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

[edit] Admin needed at.....

Hey Theresa. Couple of new entries that might need attention from an admin are Half Caste and Lion Nathan Moriori 08:55, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Nah you don't need an admin. I've put half caste on wikipedia:cleabnup and I've given lion Nathan a bit of a going over myself. theresa knott 09:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it was nothing personal... I supported 4 and opposed the rest, following Tim Starling's example. (Since that's about the right number of people to have the new powers IMO.) You're the second person to query me on a vote today, so perhaps I should clarify on the page?  :) fabiform | talk 12:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Irismeister arbitration ruling

Following the ruling by the Arbitration committee on the matter of Irismeister (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister), you are reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikiquette and to avoid making personal attacks in future. --Camembert

The above is me with my official arbitrator's hat on; this is just me: I wanted to say thanks for apologising about the remarks you made to Irismeister--I know it was ages ago, but thanks anyway. It really makes things a lot easier when people do that. All the best--Camembert

[edit] Anon user

Re: edits of Moss Side: that same user just came back and did it again under a different ip. methinks we've got a persistent vandal. -- Graham :) | Talk 19:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You may want to remove that group block after a short while though: the IP is a freeserve one. Freeserve is one of the main ISPs in the UK. -- Graham :) | Talk 19:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding avoid making personal attacks: I have two complaints to file. User:Friedo and User:Charles Matthews.

Friedo: "User page reveals this guy is a crank..." [1]

Charles Matthews: [2]

These are objectively and indisputably personal attacks. The latter one (charles) is pretty shameless, uninhibited, and rhetorical. I have had similiar problems with this person before. Kevin Baas 20:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That answers my questions. Thank you Theresa. Kevin Baas 21:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Owlmannot

Sorry - looks like I might have re-created it trying to flag it for speedy deletion. You're way ahead of me ;) Mark Richards 22:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why you refuse to mention Dr. Jipa's studies, except that you are either biased or ignorant of the subject. Lirath Q. Pynnor

We don't have original research in the encylopedia -you know that. Dr jipa is not mentioned anywhere else on the web apart from irisward. Dr Jipa is not cited by any other researchers in the field, apart from possibly irisward (I haven't checked every page on that website)If you have evidence that he really is a leading opthamologist please point me to it because I have looked everywhere. I'm not ignorant of the subject, I've been researching it for months now. As for biased, I don't know, I may be, but I wonder how neutral you are ? Is there any chance that your dislike of Ed Poor is clouding your judgement? Please read the entire talk page, including the archived pages. You may find the contents revealing.

Dr. Jipa is not publishing original research, he is merely noting the work that Dr. Waniek's team has spent 20 years doing. I have never stated that Dr. Jipa is a "leading opthamologist" -- but the group does exist, they do have medical degrees, and they are conducting research on trans-iridial light therapy. I wonder if your dislike of me is clouding your judgement? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Dr Jipa and Dr Waniek are almost certainly the same person. As for Dr Waniek's team's 20 years of research - where are the papers? (I don't mean the ones he sells himself from his website, I mean real papers) Where are the citations by other experts in the field? Anyone can claim they have been doing anything. I could claim to have been doing research for the past 50 years that proves that aliens are living in central London. I can claim my research is scientific, and peer reviewed. ( it's scierntific because I say so, it's peer reviewed because I reviewed it myself and I am the leading scientific expert in the field.

Should I be allowed to add it to wikipedia ?

Look at it that way. Iridology has always been thought of as a load of old bullshit by the medical profession. If real doctors, really had scientific evidence otherwise then it would take the scientific world by storm. So why isn't he famous? Where are the articles in nature? theresa knott 18:02, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The above paragraph proves that you are biased. You think iridology is bullshit, fine -- Drs. Waniek and Jipa are not the same person, and they don't believe iridology is bullshit. Perhaps it would help you to read Agegate by Dr. Spazio of the University of Urbana -- perhaps I know more about this than you. Of course, you will probably claim that Dr. Spazio is also Dr Jipa. Why, perhaps even I am Dr. Jipa. [3] Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • No, I'm not going to play by your so-called rules. According to those rules, all you have to do is find one friend to agree with you -- and you can revert everything I write forever, and I can't do a damn thing about it. Well, you already banned my friend Irismeister (without allowing me a chance to point out that not "everyone" thought he was a troll) -- so, I'm not going to let you just delete my text. And, of course, there isn't a rule which says I can't revert your reverts.
    • Really, I am playing by the rules -- and you are not. When have I gone and reverted your addition to an article? Never! You are the one deleting other user's text, simply because your personal POV is that it is "bullshit". If you want to NPOV my additions, fine; but deleting them is against the rules. Lirath Q. Pynnor

You have missunderstood me. I didn't delete because I thought they were bullshit. That would be POV. I leave a lot of stuff in that I think is bullshit. See my edits to reflexology for example. I deleted it because it is bogus, A lie, not true, made up. Do you see the the difference? theresa knott 18:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

bogus=bullshit -- two people have now told you that it's not "made up" -- so what is your problem? Its pretty clear that you think iridology is bullshit, so why don't you admit that you are biased? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I already have admitted that I am biased. Did you read my reply earlier on on this page? Everyone is always biased on everything. Thos who say otherwise are fooling themselves. The point is I am aware of my biases, and try my best to make up for them. Are you aware of yours ? Do you really and truly believe that research published on an editors own web page, and nowhere else, should be in Wikipedia ? Do you truly belive that such "research" should be labelled as scientific? Anyway why are you all of a sudden interested in iridology now? Does it have anything to do with Ed Poor ? Is your dislike of him affecting you good judgement? You don't need to answer these questions. Just think about them. theresa knott 18:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thats just it, its not published nowhere else -- do you really and truly believe that I would be adding the information if I was only aware of it from reading that website? Ed Poor has nothing to do with this. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Great, now we are getting somewhere. Point me to your sources, if they check out I'll be happy to let you add the stuff back in. theresa knott 23:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, naturally there isn't going to be a great deal of information online -- since its a relatively obscure topic. Most people don't know what iridology is, let alone who is actually studying the field. However, unless you also think Dr. DiSpazio is the author of crackpot "bogus bullshit" -- you would do well to note: http://www.iridologyst.org/iridostimolo.htm where he discusses his attempts to build upon Waniek's work. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It's not obscure. There are loads of pages on iridology on the web, just not many trhat mention irismeister. One tiny mention of wanieks name in a webpage does not an expert make. Still I tried to check it out, but I'm having a lot of problems with the language (I don't speak italian, and machine translations are truly awful)A couple of questions that are bugging me -

  • Is the university legit? The www was embraced by universties long before anyone else yet the website has "under construction" signs on it, doesn't appear to have a list of staff members, and doesn't look as slick at most university websites. I'm not saying that this necessarily means it's dodgy, but i don't know how to find out.
  • Assuming the university is legit, why does Dr DiSpazio not publish ihs ideas on that website ? Why did you point me to a page at iridologyst.org rather than uniburb.it?
  • Why is Dr DiSpazio mentioned on only two pages at the university website ? One page is a reading list and refers to his book. The other page appears to be some sort of conference. Surely he would deserve more of a mention than that. University professors generally have a list of research interest, PhD students, papers published, at the very least.

Can you help me out with these questions? theresa knott 06:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iridology/Comrade Nick's opinon

Well Theresa, I am aware you could find anyone's address, phone number, etc. but I am not interested in that. I spoke to someone who knows eyes (My Eye Doctor) and he told me that he heard of Dan Waniek and said that (even though he didn't beleave in iridology) you shouldn't have put on VFD, because it would be purging sources which you don't agree which is unscientific (however, if most of community agrees that it is than i will be swayed). To be honest with you i think Iridology is a bunch of bull, but anything to do it must be kept because it is the history of science, which is important for all of us.

Frankly Ms. Knott, many of my professors, and many of my friends are discussed with Wikipedia (out of over 40 people i asked to join only one did, and that one was just for the soul purpose of 'trolling me'), because of it's too closed, too strict. Now I am inclined to agree with them, but I still contribute because I feel I am helping those who come to wiki by giving them information and I am very proud of that. The thing I want for wiki is reform, to allow users to have rights, I feel this could be done by a written Consituition. And I ask for your support in this planned document Plato aka Comrade Nick

PS found the address (LOL)

I take it you mean disgusted rather than discussed? As for the rest of what you wrote -you wan't my support for a document than you plan to write? Something that doesn't actually exist yet? You're 'aving a lauffff , as they around here. theresa knott 08:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, for spelling wrong was a little EWI (editing while Intoxicated), with the Consitution I'll discuss it when i finish it (it's about 1/2 way done). Now I wish you reconsider VFDing that article because I have some interest in quackery, and more should have been to Dan Waniek, he seems someone importanted in the history of quackery to me. Comrade Nick

Thank you for the kind words, Comrade Nick. I'm back :O) - irismeister 21:44, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Please stop supporting User:Exploding Boy for adminship. He makes innapropriate articles like Finger fucking and Collar (BDSM). Radical WiKi 13:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Penis photo

Hi Theresa! How's it going? The reason that I think it should be removed is because we already have a precedent when it comes to these cases: We had a (female, I presume) contributor remove a photo of a vagina in the corresponding article, citing that it was something to the words of offensive to women, graphic in nature or something. If you are the person who removed the photo from vagina, I apologize to you. But I am an equalist, and I believe that if the vagina photo was taken out and never brought back under the argument that this contributor made, then the penis photo should go away too. Remember, even pornographic sites that carry photos like that subject their readers to be over certain age.

On the other hand, I believe that if the penus photo can stay, why not the vagina photo? I know that men and women feel differently about things like these, but still, I dont believe that men have more power over women just like women dont have more power over men either. What Im trying ti say is that, under my logic, if the vagina photo was taken out, then the penis photo should too. The myth that men dont get offended by these things is just like the myth that women dont enjoy looking at male models in sexy or suggesting clothing. Men do get offended, we just dont express it much cause, well, we were taught to be men about things..:)

Thats why I think either both photos of men and women private parts should either be out, or in. Not to mention the free access everyone has to our encyclopedia. How about if some mother or father decides to sue us over their 10 year old girl looking at a photo of a penis here and for free? I dont know as far as the law, but in American law, for example, anything can be expected.

I hope this answers your question, and I didnt sound too much of a jerk. I actually enjoy when people do good contributions/editions to articles I originated, so I hope to see your name around there very soon again!

Thanks for commenting on the matter, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Desire of the Goddesses Martin

UPDATE: ok, never mind what I said. I just checked the vagina article and the photo has been restored. So I guess now we do have equality! The point of having the penis photo out then turns moot.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours Antonio Rotten Fruit Martin

[edit] Mess at VFD-Page_name

Sorry for contributing to the confusion, I didn't look at it properly either. Thanks for cleaning up :-) ✏ Sverdrup 13:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's ok, it's easily done.theresa knott 13:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Finalization of Standards of Quality Guidelines

The Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine and all of its project pages are pretty much finalized. You are welcomed either to join our project and/or comment upon it.

We need some objective person to review our project and offer some objective criticisms. We have already received a few comments, and the project has in fact been changed.

Our most important project page would be the Standards of Quality Guidelines. Comments from everyone are requested in Talk:Standards of Quality.

By all means, review our project for compliance with NPOV.

This WikiProject will achieve its objectives by mobilizing community support to end the current state of never ending edit wars in CAM, by giving the science people what they want. The first step is establishing what the science people want. This project is going to say to the community at large that the science people want what is in our Standards of Quality Guidelines. Thus, if a CAM article passes our test the edit wars should stop. If they do not, the people doing it are in the wrong per our guidelines.

Our project has many objectives, but will start off by placing infoboxes that simply classify the corresponding CAM articles. These infoboxes have been adapted from the project on Buddhism. Eventually, we plan on performing Compliance Audits on these CAM articles, which of course would be a first for any project (as far as I know).

Thus, we could use a few more objective criticisms of our project. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Toffee

I hacked your rubbish stub, but in the process lost the hard crack bit ... I wouldn't know what hard crack was if it bit me. If you fancy some revenge hacking, please go for it. --Tagishsimon

[edit] Village pimp ;-)

Thanks for moving the village pump discussion. i simply do not feel confident editing large pages yet: last time i tried it i duplicated the entire article! Anárion 14:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I regulaly muck up pages.theresa knott 15:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7ETheresa_knott_archive3_4ff3.html"