![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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
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. [1] 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
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 -
Can you help me out with these questions? theresa knott 06:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Im no expert, my role here is more like that of Amnesty International. It is becoming extremely clear that Irismeister was not banned for his behavior, but because Theresa and the cabal don't think Iridology should be treated as anything except a "bullshit science". Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir if you don't like the fact that irismeister is banned, you should take the matter up with the AC. Likewise if you think I should be banned. To the anon editor. Although i agree with most of what you say, I have to point out that irismeister's harrasment of me is no longer of any relavence. The important points IMO are
As for the question of a cabel - bollocks (said the queen; if I has them I'd be king). theresa knott 19:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister is not Waniek, even if he were -- that would be no reason not to mention him here. He is a relevant "player" in the field, you have already admitted that you think iridology is "bullshit" and thus you are unduly biased. You are forcing your personal POV onto everyone else. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Go to google and do a search, its not that hard. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There are numerous hits, from numerous websites -- try searching a little more. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir you want it in -so you do the search. I have searched a plenty but i couldn't find much. So you'll have to demonstrate your superior search skills. theresa knott
try searching a little more. . .Okay, here's what a few minutes with Google turned up:
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Dan OR Daniel Jipa": Two hits, both from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Mircea Olteanu": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Computer Vision Research Group": Two hits, one from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "trans-iridial light therapy": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia. A pattern begins to emerge. . .
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Mircea Olteanu": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from Wikipedia. The pattern becomes clearer. . .
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Mircea Olteanu": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": No hits. See where this is heading?
"Mircea Olteanu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Mircea Olteanu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from guess where
"Computer Vision Research Group" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, I don't have to tell you where.
Perhaps Lir would like to share the search she used to confirm the paragraph in dispute? — 67.71.79.55 21:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you don't dispute that he exists, and that is an iridologist, and that he is Romanian, and that he is writing about Iridology -- then how can you dispute that he is doing research on iridology in Romania? Lirath Q. Pynnor
Would you like to call Stefan Stangaciu? His phone number is 40744409126. He lives in Romania. He is the author of Sanft heilen mit Bienen-Produkten; Im sure he would love to confirm what Mr. Jipa attempted to add here. Im sure he would love to do that for each one of you personally; after that, I am sure he will agree to call Jimbo Wales and post to the mailing list -- then, we can call Mircea and see what she has to say. After that, we can all go to Romania and see that it really does exist. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The CNRI has also listed him as one of their professors. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Thats exactly why the information should be included on this page. Examining Waniek's work, and its rebuttals, is very useful for making one's own decision about the state of the field. There is no reason that Theresa McKnott should make that decision for the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir - my name is Knott, I don't know where you got the Mc from. I am more than happy for a link to the CNRI list of publications to be added to the page. theresa knott 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please see Dan Waniek which has a complete list of publications which CNRI felt were significant. Lirath Q. Pynnor
You don't have to pay Waniek for all of his essays. Even if you did, that wouldn't exclude him from deserving mention. You have clearly conceded that CNRI is worthy of mention -- well, CNRI lists Waniek as a pioneer in the field. So set your POV aside and just accept it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
So let me get this straight. You are saying that if we link to any website we should also link to any website they link to ? That is absurd. theresa knott 20:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, Im saying that if the CNRI is worthy of mention -- then so is Waniek. Lirath Q. Pynnor
OK fine, I wont add the CNRI link in. I just thought it would give readers a good laugh that's all. theresa knott 20:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Its too late tho, you already agreed to put it in, back when you thought the CNRI didn't recognize Waniek. Now you are sounding more and more like a lying troll with a POV vendetta. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The CNRI recognizes Waniek as a "pioneer in Iridology". Lirath Q. Pynnor
Hello Lir, I'm back after a nice evening. I hope you enjoyed yourself while I was gone. As for harm, it harms the reputation of wikipedia to include advertising links to personal webpages. Plus irismiester may well not like having a personal page about him here, he has objected to the placing of double brackets around Wanieks name in the past after all. theresa knott 00:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister is not Waniek. We have links to many personal webpages already.
Lirath Q. Pynnor
OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh yes he is !!!!!!!!!! theresa knott 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Im not an associate or research partner. The conflict of interst is thus no longer existant. Theresa is an enemy of Jipa, thus she has a conflict of interest. Lirath Q. Pynnor
you are a puppet. Not a very good one either as you added irismesiter's vote for him to keep the waniek page even though he says in the archives of this talk page "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 :) " -note that the "dyslexic editor" is moi theresa knott 00:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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
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. [1] 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
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 -
Can you help me out with these questions? theresa knott 06:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Im no expert, my role here is more like that of Amnesty International. It is becoming extremely clear that Irismeister was not banned for his behavior, but because Theresa and the cabal don't think Iridology should be treated as anything except a "bullshit science". Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir if you don't like the fact that irismeister is banned, you should take the matter up with the AC. Likewise if you think I should be banned. To the anon editor. Although i agree with most of what you say, I have to point out that irismeister's harrasment of me is no longer of any relavence. The important points IMO are
As for the question of a cabel - bollocks (said the queen; if I has them I'd be king). theresa knott 19:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister is not Waniek, even if he were -- that would be no reason not to mention him here. He is a relevant "player" in the field, you have already admitted that you think iridology is "bullshit" and thus you are unduly biased. You are forcing your personal POV onto everyone else. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Go to google and do a search, its not that hard. Lirath Q. Pynnor
There are numerous hits, from numerous websites -- try searching a little more. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir you want it in -so you do the search. I have searched a plenty but i couldn't find much. So you'll have to demonstrate your superior search skills. theresa knott
try searching a little more. . .Okay, here's what a few minutes with Google turned up:
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Dan OR Daniel Jipa": Two hits, both from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Mircea Olteanu": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "Computer Vision Research Group": Two hits, one from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Waniek" + "trans-iridial light therapy": Three hits, two from Waniek's site, one from Wikipedia. A pattern begins to emerge. . .
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Mircea Olteanu": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Stefan Stangaciu": No hits
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Dan OR Daniel Jipa" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from Wikipedia. The pattern becomes clearer. . .
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Mircea Olteanu": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": No hits
"Stefan Stangaciu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": No hits. See where this is heading?
"Mircea Olteanu" + "Computer Vision Research Group": One hit, from Wikipedia
"Mircea Olteanu" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, from guess where
"Computer Vision Research Group" + "trans-iridial light therapy": One hit, I don't have to tell you where.
Perhaps Lir would like to share the search she used to confirm the paragraph in dispute? — 67.71.79.55 21:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you don't dispute that he exists, and that is an iridologist, and that he is Romanian, and that he is writing about Iridology -- then how can you dispute that he is doing research on iridology in Romania? Lirath Q. Pynnor
Would you like to call Stefan Stangaciu? His phone number is 40744409126. He lives in Romania. He is the author of Sanft heilen mit Bienen-Produkten; Im sure he would love to confirm what Mr. Jipa attempted to add here. Im sure he would love to do that for each one of you personally; after that, I am sure he will agree to call Jimbo Wales and post to the mailing list -- then, we can call Mircea and see what she has to say. After that, we can all go to Romania and see that it really does exist. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The CNRI has also listed him as one of their professors. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Thats exactly why the information should be included on this page. Examining Waniek's work, and its rebuttals, is very useful for making one's own decision about the state of the field. There is no reason that Theresa McKnott should make that decision for the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir - my name is Knott, I don't know where you got the Mc from. I am more than happy for a link to the CNRI list of publications to be added to the page. theresa knott 19:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please see Dan Waniek which has a complete list of publications which CNRI felt were significant. Lirath Q. Pynnor
You don't have to pay Waniek for all of his essays. Even if you did, that wouldn't exclude him from deserving mention. You have clearly conceded that CNRI is worthy of mention -- well, CNRI lists Waniek as a pioneer in the field. So set your POV aside and just accept it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
So let me get this straight. You are saying that if we link to any website we should also link to any website they link to ? That is absurd. theresa knott 20:22, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, Im saying that if the CNRI is worthy of mention -- then so is Waniek. Lirath Q. Pynnor
OK fine, I wont add the CNRI link in. I just thought it would give readers a good laugh that's all. theresa knott 20:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Its too late tho, you already agreed to put it in, back when you thought the CNRI didn't recognize Waniek. Now you are sounding more and more like a lying troll with a POV vendetta. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The CNRI recognizes Waniek as a "pioneer in Iridology". Lirath Q. Pynnor
Hello Lir, I'm back after a nice evening. I hope you enjoyed yourself while I was gone. As for harm, it harms the reputation of wikipedia to include advertising links to personal webpages. Plus irismiester may well not like having a personal page about him here, he has objected to the placing of double brackets around Wanieks name in the past after all. theresa knott 00:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister is not Waniek. We have links to many personal webpages already.
Lirath Q. Pynnor
OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh yes he is !!!!!!!!!! theresa knott 00:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Im not an associate or research partner. The conflict of interst is thus no longer existant. Theresa is an enemy of Jipa, thus she has a conflict of interest. Lirath Q. Pynnor
you are a puppet. Not a very good one either as you added irismesiter's vote for him to keep the waniek page even though he says in the archives of this talk page "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 :) " -note that the "dyslexic editor" is moi theresa knott 00:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)