Talk:Iridology/Archive 3

message: There is a pattern my friends of you inviting me to help with your mess and jumping in the very moment I do exactly that. This is the third time in  a row. LOOK AT THE DATE TIME STAMPS ! I see you are all naughty and want to fill the potty, but hold it right now ! One sick person at a time : )
----
My dear friend,
We can't BOTH edit the article at the same time without congesting the already congested Wiki servers and adding more editing conflicts. If you don't have patience, and ALWAYS jump in to cut what I didn't finished writing, you'll NEVER get the chance to learn something. Including manners. Behave like a grown-up ! One sick person at a time : )
what I wish to restore
We are not there yet. Some intermediate  steps might help:
*Wait until I finish my sentence and then restore dialogues;
*Listen. You don't listen. Try to understand what I am saying;
*Judge by youself (using your own mind processes, not cut-and-paste, that is);
*Restore some credibility with the SPELL CHECKER - a very useful tool before restoring anything else;
*Breathe deeply, and if you can't restore some sanity, please go to step one. One sick person at a time : ) : ) 
Sincerely, your patient mamma irismeister 17:40, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC) (and don't call me names - it's IRIS-MEISTER : )
----
Copied from page - ". Medical doctors performing iris examinations may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes, colorimeters and spectrophotometers, image analysis and anterior ocular chamber echography. "
I am not familier with many of these terms. However I do know what a colorimiter is. I use one at work. I am interested in how a medical doctor would use one of these devises to perform an iris examination, as the ones I have used need a sample to be placed inside a chamber in the machine. theresa knott 18:05, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch!
I was beginning to find this annoying until IRIS-MEISTER took the time to recommend we use a SPELL CHECKER.  Thank you, I've rediscovered my sense of humour about the whole thing.  Fabiform 18:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not him then why have included the iris picture from his site? It's copyrighted. theresa knott 10:14, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooperative authoring by no means SYMMULTANEOUS !

message: Yeah, and I hate him for what he knows. He pretends to be cool but is only a cold blooded Steppenwolf. Tried to do better and make a fool of the guy, but as you can't catch me, me can't catch him, the nasty animal. Pretty much sure of him and he really knows this stuff he teaches. His article BTW is unbeatable. Like Medline, I can't avoid including it here to keep NPOV alive and well. He once administered me a MCQ and I was way under the 72nd percentile. Felt humiliated. I hate  him! Besides, I'm much worse than anything you can imagine as a result, and want to cut him into pieces myself. With my bare hands. Being a stubborn teacher myself I turn everything upon you, nice fellas, cauz it worked for me. Whatever he did to me worked wonders, except that I hate him. But now you take advantage of me and my time! It's not question time yet, pal. Go back to editing and to your own page (where you've got mail, my friend)! Here in Wiki we're not into personal matters and in this specific page we only talk iridology. Of course, if you still can. Please!
Passionately, irismeister 23:47, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)
::If you are not him then why have included the iris picture from his site? It's copyrighted. theresa knott 10:14, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: people who have attended one of his seminars : )

message: ----
Please do not intervene in my answer to fab, Theresa dear! And you will remove nothing that is Wikified, useful and NPOV any more, my dear Theresa ! You already removed stuff from this page, and this is ground for banning you from Wiki. I will raise your case to the appropriate instances in due time, but rest assured, I can already confirm that a thought police attitude, lack of basic critical, scientific, human and even English skills are not encouraging. In the mean time, the fact that you care more for arbitration than for articulation of your thought and mental processes, is even more discouraging. Last, my citizenship, interests, skin and eye color, are more relevant for neo-fascists, communists and Nazi thought police than for a page dedicate to a REAL contribution to iridology. Please rest assured that I take your attitude quite seriously ! I am only a five-star irismeister, a title that I earned in a peer review process, with a well documented track record, including taking Dr Waniek's seminars with a score above the 68th percentile. How about you dear ? You will not drive iridology or Wiki into Orwell-land, trust me ! Passionately, irismeister 14:28, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)
Unfortuneatly you have driven Fabiform away from this page. He has taken this page off his watchlist. The stuff I removed was a long insulting comment to me from you. I removed it because i find for example you calling me "baby" offensive. However if you insist I'll add it back in. I don't care anything about your skin colour, interests etc. I only mentioned them because i firmly believe that you are Dr Dan Waniek  and was pointing out that if you are not him then you share his nickname, interests, nationality etc. The p[oint i made about the iris picture is important. Should I list it on copyright violations or not? I have no intention of driving iridology into owell land as you put it, but I will remove links to personal websites. Wikipedia is an encylopedia not an advert for your dodgy site. theresa knott 14:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thought Police

message: ----
The p[oint i made about the iris picture is important 
Theresa dear, what are the points you made? Besides making a point of honor out of jumping in and cutting things you are not qualified enough to judge, read, let alone throw away without checking, I mean. Please refrain from cutting again ANYWHERE. The link you keep cutting is that of a registered corporation, the firtst world iridial studies site, a Google first, and the place where I learned what you don't want to be taught. Personal therefore is only your POV which I will edit out on every occasion. Be careful though, I will watch all your activities from now on, since you are in my view, dangerous to the Wiki community, to the memory of George Orwell (it's not owell, dear - why don't you click one more time out of the Del button ?) and the cause of truth. What are your articles ? The nice bucket and spade drawing let aside, the (cut) / (read and write) ratio of your "editing" activity is nearing infinity because the denominator tends towards zero. So your stubborn thought police activity  on these pages is only a way to let everybody know about obsessive compulsive behavior. Please behave decently, and do not jump to conclusions. Non supra crepidam , baby ! And you didn't put back what you cut - only your VERSION of it. Again, ground for banning. Very carefully yours, irismeister 21:13, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)
----
Note for anyone reading this page - I went to page history - found the edit where I cut stuff - clikced on diff, selected all the stuff that I had cut then reinserted. theresa knott 21:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theresa please don't cut things from talk page ! (Third such request)

message: User:Theresa_knott vandalized the iridology:talk page repeatedly. Her spelling is always biased towards insulting POVs.
User:DavidWBrooks questioned this editor's sanity (see below). It was this questioning that I reported six days ago. Apparently my report was misunderstood. I was banned as a consequence. Enclosed are the relevant passages.
Both User:Theresa_knott  and User:DavidWBrooks said this:
being polite is awfully annoying at times. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the neutrality of the articles is disputed, but only (I think) by irismeister.  The article still needs some polishing, (and a the before national health!), and I think we were agreed that it would be good to expand the section on the theories behind iridology, and how it is supposed to work.  Irismeister spent most of his time ranting though instead of making the changes we would have welcomed.  Anyway, thanks for your protection of the page.  I'll leave it to people who are less involved to say whether the NPOV notice should have remained or not.  fabiform | talk 15:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for hard ban on Theresa Knott and DavidWBrooks

message: Removed abusive use of double square brackets on author Dan Waniek - his being subject of a Wiki article is a blatant POV : )
By now, the tyranny of florid, overt, full blown dyslexic editors outsmarts the tyranny of cranks :) Follow her  wit : )
I find it particlaly strange... theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the neutrality of the articles is disputed, but only (I think) by irismeister.  The article still needs some polishing, (and a the before national health!), and I think we were agreed that it would be good to expand the section on the theories behind iridology, and how it is supposed to work.  Irismeister spent most of his time ranting though instead of making the changes we would have welcomed.  Anyway, thanks for your protection of the page.  I'll leave it to people who are less involved to say whether the NPOV notice should have remained or not.  fabiform | talk 15:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A small note on irismeister's character

message: On tyranny of the cranks
----
Page is reverted to Teresa knott's last version and protected in consequence of a long series of POV violations by irismeister, with no attempt to discuss rationally that I can detect. 
Also, I removed the "page is disputed" header. I'm not sure if this last was a good thing to do or not, and would welcome advice. I'll consider restoring it if requested. 
Tannin 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the neutrality of the articles is disputed, but only (I think) by irismeister.  The article still needs some polishing, (and a the before national health!), and I think we were agreed that it would be good to expand the section on the theories behind iridology, and how it is supposed to work.  Irismeister spent most of his time ranting though instead of making the changes we would have welcomed.  Anyway, thanks for your protection of the page.  I'll leave it to people who are less involved to say whether the NPOV notice should have remained or not.  fabiform | talk 15:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: no attempt to discuss rationally that I can detect
Needs reason, yeah... Very badly needed... I can see your point : ) So why not let us attempt to talk, then, like in not protecting  the page ? : )
Also, I removed the "page is disputed" header. I'm not sure if this last was a good thing to do or not, and would welcome advice. I'll consider restoring it if requested. Tannin 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critic of ''Purée'' Reason : )

message: Fab, you keep cutting my messages to you on this page. Why do you give us ground for banning you ?
Sincerely, irismeister 15:59, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC) 
12787 total number of pages edited during the (three months) free speech Wiki period, period . Will start losing time in writing articles again, only after "ignarrogants " will stop cutting them without reading them... : )
Note to anyone reading this page - Fab has not deleted any messages on this page. The above message was cut and pasted by iris bully from fabiform's talk page. theresa knott 16:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not deleting information on talk pages