Talk:Iridology/Archive 6

removed facts
' According to Dan Waniek, he -- along with Mircea Olteanu, Dan Jipa, and Stefan Stangaciu, in conjunction with the Computer Vision Research Group -- have spent 20 years studying experimental trans-iridial light therapy, in Romania. This claim has been partially substantiated by Vincenzo Di Spazio, "At the end of the 1980s, an evocative hypothesis was advanced on the part of iridologist and chronobiologist Dr. Dan Waniek, who postulated a non-visual function of the eye which he referred to as "Functio ocularis sistemica" (PHOS)." (2000) '


 * I have not seen any convincing reason for removing these facts, which are quite helpful to those researching this topic (which would apparently be theresa knot, mr. waniek and adam, and prob nobody else ;) Sam Spade 06:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if this is verifiable I can't see how it would hurt the article in general.--User:192.94.73.4


 * The concern is that wikipedia could be used to provide the appearance of legitimacy where it may not be warranted. It's a tough issue, since it often involves judgement calls, but I think we should err on the side of caution - if there are serious questions, leave it out. After all, there are people out there who have spent 20 years studying alien abductions and "NASA's faked moon landing" and have developed evocative hypohteses by the boatload, but we don't give each one of them a paragraph (at least, I hope not) - DavidWBrooks 15:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't find it questionable they've spent 20 years studying iridology resulting in only two publishable papers, one of which was sent to a pay-to-publish journal (Med.Hypoth.) Full articles have been already given to true nutcases such as Archimedes Plutonium -- the precedent is there already. As long as the information is not misleading (such as listing essays as publications), I don't see how the information above would hurt the iridology article. The message it communicates is clear: "20 years and still not much on hand".--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * While your basic point (the utter unimportance of the information in question) is well taken, including it would harm the article in the same way that listing the batting averages of Little League Baseball players in an article about baseball would be: it suggests it is important information, and it is not. It distracts from understanding: it does not add to understanding. An article should not be composed of trivia: it should be a review of what is important, rather than a collection of what is unimportant. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

we should. Sam Spade 18:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wiki is not paper, deletionism is anti-wiki

 * Deletionism is anti-wiki is just a slogan. I'm sure there are more solid arguments for keeping or deleting stuff off wikipedia.--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Multiple points. 1) "Deletionism" is seen as anti-Wikipedia by some; others feel it is important to maintain standards.  2) Asking for the removal of information that many editors feel is misleading and substantially too unimportant to merit inclusion in this article (or really any article other than perhaps one on Waniek & Co.) is not necessarily deletionism.  3) The belief that Wikipedia is not paper is important to keep in mind in many situations, although I would submit that it does not demand that Wikipedia become a repository for all things that have ever happened (one might envision thousands of articles devoted to every house number in London and the names of every family ever having inhabited that dwelling....though of course certain addresses, such as 10 Downing Street are excellent examples of possible exceptions) -- indeed, the question is not "should Wikipedia include things not in EB?" (to which we should reply "Yes!  Wikipedia is not paper!) but "should Wikipedia include this specific information, which appears to many editors to be biased, misrepresentative, and misleading concerning iridology and its leading practitioners today?" to which "Yes!  Wikipedia is not paper!" becomes a less convincing response to me.  Of course, Sam is free to disagree with me (and by now, what can I do but expect such a thing? ;-), but I hope that Sam will agree that his remarks are too hasty and inapplicable to serve as conclusive argument here.  Sam likely does have an excellent point (he often does) and I look forward to its being expressed here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

there isn't a very good argument in favor of the Iridology article itself, outside of the above. It is a fringe science. I have discussed it with a medical proffessional who knew of it, and they seemed to find it humerous at best. On the other hand, yes; your reference to the streets of london is a perfect explanation. I'd like to have an in depth article on every person, living and dead. Maybe even have a dna blueprint for alot of them. Terrabytes are cheap, and the future is full of faster, bigger, cheaper and better. I don't see why we should draw the line on fringe science, so long as it is clear that is what they are. Do you honestly think Waniek & Co. is/are unqualified as Iridologists? How could anyone be? Are their schools for this? It isn't recognized as a medicine legally in the US, and so I would assume no liscensing is necessary. Is there a liscense for a Iridology in romania? Honestly, I prefer to get as much information as possible from as many sources as possible. It is really best to require the accuser to present the evidence. You accuse mr. waniak of being unqualified, but what is a qualified Iridologist? A snake oil salesman? A hypnotist? just what are the qualifications you'd like to have proved? Will mr waniak have to cure you of something? I'm already following the Iridology program (minus the light in my eyes part) as best as I can tell, so maybe I'm a qualified Iridologist ;) 'Wiki is not paper' is important to point out w silly extraneous articles like this one, and 'deletionism is anti-wiki', because the point is to ad to, repair, rewrite, produce more content. Simply deleting alone is anti-thetical. You must ad content as well, and prove your case with citations and facts. Personally, I'd love to see it investigated. Is their a romanian wikipedian who would be willing to look into mr waniak in person, ring him up and examine his creditials? We could all throw in and pay the fee's ;) Sam Spade 23:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't ask for qualifications, Sam. I'm asking for proof that the iridology community believes his work is hugely important, or at least important enough to merit the prominent position Waniek is giving his research in this article.  He doesn't have to cure me -- he does have to show that the community of iridologists believes his work to be ground-breaking.  There are heroes within the iridology community, I do not doubt -- I'm happy to note their work as influential, whether or not I think they can cure me (I don't).  But if Waniek isn't influential in his community, I don't think we should say he is.  And I'll say it seems to me also that you and I have a different idea of the limits to WP's scope, Sam. :-)  I had considered long ago asking a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian to look into Waniek's writing, etc., but I decided I didn't want to bother someone else with what was not their problem.  I'd be open to it, though, if enough people agree it's important to get to the bottom of this.  Personally, I feel satisfied about my conclusion, but am open to having my mind changed. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think the best way to treat a controversial subject such as this is to allow its proponents to describe it without much interference in one section, then let its critics have their say in a separate section. Mkweise 10:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

exactly. NPOV is point, counter point, and sythesis where all agree. Sam Spade 10:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to allow this when the proponent is focused on the issue -- say, at Shroud of Turin User:BobDaniels posts a lot of stuff about why some people believe the SoT is Jesus' actual burial wrapping. That's just fine, I think, especially if Bob uses formulas like "Shroud believers contend that...", but even if not: we'll just have another section for skeptics to outline and propone their POV.  But I think we'd agree that, if Bob Daniels was a fellow who'd written a lot of crackpot stuff about the Shroud for 20 years and gotten it published in some fringe magazines here and there, we would object to his stating "The Shroud's authenticity has recently been affirmed by the research of Robert Daniels, one of the world's foremost experts in the analysis of ancient textiles and in the provenance of religious artifacts."  It's one thing to give a proponent room to move in defense of an idea.  It's another to give them room to promote themselves in unseemly fashion.  That's my beef.  Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, its a good thing I never tried to describe Waniek as one of the world's "foremost experts"; despite my personal POV that Waniek is the most famous iridologist in all of eastern europe -- my addition was simply a notation that the person exists, and should be of interested to someone interested in iridology. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I concur w lir, and I'd ask you not tpo limit our scope, Jw. One of the coolest parts about the wiki is its unlimited potential.nI'm not saying to exaggerate, I am saying to give him his due, and if you don't think he is 'respected by the iridologist community' (gee, what does that entail? A giant eyeball poster, or what?) lets see you prove he isn't. I'm saying the standard here is SO low, (unlike the shroud of turin) that any wacky crackpot is prob a leader in the feild ;) Sam Spade 20:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, Sam, our scope here is limited, if only by the fact that articles can only get so long before they're too long to be of use. :-) I have yet to see any site not owned/operated by Waniek that treats him as anything more than one minor researcher.  I have noted the CNRI site specifically as one that seems to consider Waniek simply one of dozens of researchers, not notable enough for them to refer to even the scope of his research.  Therefore, I would say that, while he doesn't seem "disrespected" by the community, his inclusion in an article entitled "Iridology" seems strange.  It is as though I was arguing for the inclusion of a paragraph in the Poetry article on "Michael Daley, a poet who emphasizes the need to write about the locales and places in which the poet lives."  Michael Daley is a real poet (and a good one) who is a friend of mine.  He has been published on several occasions in poetry journals over the last 30 years, most notably in American Poetry Review.  He does emphasize the need to write about the places in which one lives -- not a completely original idea in poetry, but he's more articulate about it than many, I think.  Daley may well deserve his own article.....what he doesn't deserve is mention on the Poetry page.  He is not well-known outside of a few circles within poetry, and no major poetry site would mark him as a "unique voice in modern poetry", even though there are some original and interesting ideas in his work.  Waniek is similar, in my eyes -- a minor figure who is published in a couple of places, and has a couple of interesting ideas, but who is certainly not a well-known or influential figure in Iridology, based on the fact that most references to him on the web seem to have been placed there by him.  Waniek can have his own article -- I'm fine with that.  But there's no more reason to mention him here than there is for me to add Michael Daley to the Poetry article.  I hope I'm being clear.  Waniek apparently has done enough that a very brief article on him might be appropriate.  He should not, however, be given prominent place in Iridology because there seem to be many organizations and individuals that are more notable in that field.  That's my position. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a fairly sensible position. I would say that your analogy is acceptable, with one striking difference... the scope of poetry is HUGE, wheras the pseudo-science of Iridology is small. Their simply arn't that many people even interested in it, much less researching in the feild. I agree w you about poetry, and I encourage you to write an article on your friend. On the other hand, I think poetry, which has been a passion of many for... dare I say ALL of literary history, and a good deal of oral history beforehand, is a different matter entirely. In summary, would you compromise on an external link to waniaks page? Sam Spade 17:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I personally would accept that -- as long as the wording of the link made clear what it is. Not "Iridology Pros and Cons", then, but "Iridology as described by an Iridologist" or something like that?  And you are correct that poetry is a little big to be a good comparison, but I'm afraid I don't know any fringe scientists for a more apt analogy. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meaning well and talking hell
Since that section was completely irrelevant to the subject I moved it here.--192-94-73-5 16:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Self-righteous culture never produces good arbiters. It does, however provide good movers :O) We all have a purpose in life, IP-FBI-Wikipolice. Pehaps yours is to watch tv :O) Oh, and now I know who you are. We still live under the Rule of Law, dude :O) - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 16 (UTC)


 * Waniek, you are weird but funny at th same time.--192-94-73-5 18:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionary iris
Iriswardster, since you seem to have a problem with focusing, here's a second take at a competent discussion (as you loudly kept advocating until recently). I am copying below the discussion and would beg you remain focused on the discussion without involving your strong emotions about Theresa and the other admins:
 * [...] can you think of any evolutionary justification for a disease signaling system through the iris? how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive better than others?--192.94.73.5 04:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * [...] As for the evolutionary justification, you just hit the jeckpot, young lady. There is a reason for that. The iris would have been completely opaque, like other "membranes" if the evolutionary purpose was to provide a diaphragm and an "iris" diaphragm only. Cunningly, it isn't. And it isn't opaque at a price. It takes more efforts in this war economy called homeostasty to keep the iris transparent and variably transparent. Presumably, there must be an important physiological reason for this largesse. As great American physiologist Walter Cannon put it, the body, in its wisdom, makes no unjustified expenses. The challenge was to see why the iris was transparent in the first place. Was it only an "imperfection"? Dr Waniek, Professor Olteanu, Dr St*ngaciu, Dr Mircea Popescu and myself thought the iris was anything but an example of imperfect structure adapted to its functions. So we looked into measures of the pattern of iris transparency (PIT). Moreover, the iris distributes light in a very peculiar and strange way - towards the peripheral retina. There are a few quite interesting studies on the links between iris sectors and the ora serrata [...] Talking about apes: at least they are not naked... What is your postal address ? I will send you a reprint from the milestone peer reviewed article I published with dr Popescu, dr Waniek, and Professor Olteanu twenty years ago! - irismeister 09:00, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * What were the conclusions drawn from your research, then? I have seen the FOS hypothesis formulated several times now both on your website and here in the talk page. Without having me disclose my address or request an interlibrary loan, could you just give a very short summary of the conclusions your group had drawn following the research? And I reiterate one earlier question: how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive others any better?--192.94.73.5 01:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (answers are very welcome and appreciated here)--192-94-73-5 02:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Controlled/uncontrolled studies
I believe an explanation of the specific meaning of the terms controlled/uncontrolled should also be included with the "Evidence of Effectiveness" section. Does uncontrolled mean the iridological diagnosis was never validated against a standard evaluation of the patient in question? In that case the reference would not serve as a very good piece of evidence, would it?--192-94-73-5 17:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, IMNSHO, IP-FBI-Wikipolice is not genuinely interested in iridology, or he wouldn't cut huge stuff from this page (in the infamous tradition inaugurated by Theresa) and harass or call the main contributor of these pages names. Disregard IP-FBI-Wikipolice's feigned interest, questions or culture. Now back to Wikie business as usual:
 * Ora serratal physiology, anyone ? Have time, will wait - :O) irismeister 17:27, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Drop the Cop ! Immediately ! (second warning)
Theresa continues making a fool of herself "editing" this iridology stuff. In what concerns her "fight of flight" addition, there is a WARNING: This has nothing to do with the article! This is only something Theresa just cut and pasted from some dustbin, thinking this will raise her status from "dyslexic Wikicop" to some "medical editing" qualification.

Consider this a second warning: Theresa purposefully, systematically and rudely runs her boots, which are dirty, on the iridology article.

I recently had an open class. My students and I read what Theresa contributed and had a good healthy laugh. She made the day. For her, the ora serrata conveys the fight or flight physiology... Perhaps she was only talking about herself :O)

Ooh irismeister, you are soooo masterful!. You used two excalmation marks in the title and gave me a second warning. And for what? All I did was move the infobox and a few picture around. Wow what will you do when I make a real edit. I'm quaking in my boots with anticiiiiipation. theresa knott 13:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Lasting Iridology Editing Pleasure

 * So you are a Wikicop and you admit it! Do they provide the boots for you? Then let's hope you are not on someone else's carpet :O) It would be a pity to see you once again kicked out from your leased superintendent boots and into your never ending, barefoot, reflexologically correct quacking pleasure :O) It's still high time for you, dear, to fight or flight :O) How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

PS: Have my two cents for it: In medical Wiki articles, it will take a looooooooooooooong time until you will make a real edit. In the mean time I can only hope your pleasure or at least your "anticiiiiipation" will last that long :O ) - irismeister 13:37, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure it will.Incidentally I've never been kicked out of my boots. You are confusing me with someone else i think. I like the feel of leather against my skin too much. If you want something removed from the article ask nicely instead of trying to insult me. I'm happy to oblige you if you ask nicely. theresa knott 13:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 I like the feel of leather against my skin too much.  Being the experienced medical doctor I am, and admiring your behavior, I never doubted it, sugar! You know I admire people for what they do best. You were born a person craving for lather and police fancy. But you are plain delirious. And square nuts. Besides, I am too old to take your sexual harassment otherwise than Police benefits for my hard editing work. Here, however, we are trying to concentrate on the iris stroma, dear. We all know whe we are, don't we, Theresa ? So I will put a warning on this page for more serious sysops than you are, my dear. Before you jump on the occasion, just a small reminder (try to focus honey, this is for the professional in you: How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? -

From Theresa's Lather Phantasm, Again and Always Back to Basics
PS, for everybody: Using Word as Photoshop, with a revenge, desperatingly expecting others to correct her own mistakes, while writing on the Alternative Medicine talk page that she has plenty of time to lose, hmm, shall I continue?

An editor and a sysop writing anything but iridology on the iridology page is only a troll. She prevents real job being done, she turns Wiki into a market where volunteers lose their time contributing, and cops like she is lose everybody's time policing. Not to be continued, let alone reccommended. Just let her laugh all the time - for her own enjoyment (perhaps she needs it badly, judging from her venting alleged charms on the market place :O.)

Message for Theresa: get a life, dear! While John here, like in the Alternative Medicine page, project and hundreds of related articles is the only one doing the real work, very much to his honor, and the cause of health, let us all HELP him or at THE VERY LEAST let him REST unharassed, and hey, iridial studies, anyone ? :O) - irismeister 14:43, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Irismeister it's leather not lather. Lather is what soap does when you put it in water. Leather is what police boots are made of. theresa knott 15:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Theresugar baby, I trust your far greater knowledge of what police boots are made of, and kindly ask you for the third time here not to divert my precious time to your soap box, and towards how do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? - irismeister 16:57, 2004 May 17 (UTC)


 * Irismonster, why don't you just state clearly in one sentence you don't agree with the fight-or-flight response, explain why, and save the rest of the offensive language for personal talk pages? Act professionally for once. You won't ever succeed in making a point by just flooding this space with your personal drama.--192-94-73-5 15:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * :O) For this one sentence, you need weeks of homework in autonomous nervous system physiology, so that I do not waste one more phrase in another answer to you, stupid. Capisci ? Not being the monster you insist I am, perhaps I will, but I have time to wait and see your progress first. Do you have time to learn IP-FBI-Wikicop? Boots are not provided for free ! - irismeister 16:57, 2004 May 17 (UTC)


 * Waniek, I'm completely aware there are things I don't know much about. This is precisely why I use Wikipedia: to learn. I asked you some questions you didn't answer. Those answers would greatly add substance to this article. Perhaps you don't know the answers. Perhaps you don't even know you don't know the answers. What in the world are you using Wikipedia for then? Other than trying to advertise your website for free?--192-94-73-5 17:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha, you ARE making progress then :O) Good. Try the Wiki manual of style next. Tomorrow I will have some time for you and your, for once, sensible arguments - for you, at least, you surely know that you don't know anything :O) Keep up the good work. And if you want to talk to Waniek, why don't you call him ? He gives seminars for what I know. His seminars are public, as my identity is private, stupid, and isn't there the finest place in the world to learn about him and his work, if you Wikilove him so much? One more word, naughty boy and trigger-happy bedwetter ? Who are you, by given name, that is ? It's weird to address to you as a number. Weird, and contrary to the spirit of health ;O) Anyway, who cares, I for one, know who you are. You are Dr Trollonsohn.


 * Yeah, and you are Dr. Brigitte Bardot. Now what about those answers?--192-94-73-5 18:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

infobox, like much of the content, is done badly
I wouldn't have thought it possible, but that overblown and self-important "related links" box has made this article even uglier than it was before - just as the overblown and self-important true-believer verbiage has made it virtually impossible to read. Fortunately, the terrible appearance might scare off people who don't realize how this has turned from an article into a soapbox (hey, maybe that's what "lather" means) - DavidWBrooks 15:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, David, tsk, tsk, you got it all wrong for once :O) It's only "thinking in a box" that means a lot of lather and froth from leather-rubbing editors like we-all-know-who-loves Cop paraphernalia and all other diversions as quoted :O) - irismeister 17:02, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I agree David. I've moved the infobox back to the top so that it doesn't make the article look totally stupid. The article IMO needs a complete rewrite. However I don't think i am the best person to do it. theresa knott 15:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Theresugar baby, I trust your far greater knowledge in moving boxes around, but kindly ask you for the fourth time here, not to divert my precious time to your precious box gestures, and towards how do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated that you want kept and carved in Wikistone as a monument of human ineptia ? - irismeister 16:59, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

For both of you: You two are as good Wiki entertainment as ever. Thank you whole heartedly :O)


 * Oh he called me sugar he luuuuuuuves me. As for diverting your precious time. Listen veery carefully I shall seey dis only vonce. No! I will not stop wasting your time. I will not discuss anything with you except for how much you luuuuuuurve me. Others may well be foolish enough to think they can gain anything by talking to you, but I know you too well to think that anything sensible can come out of a conversation with you. Now call me baby again, you know i love it so. theresa knott 18:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * ) OK baby :O) But why on Wiki ? Are you an exhibitionist ? We can arrange your show and my "baby" registration looping in private, and keep Wiki a working, sensible, free and clean space. Incidentally, would you cut that ugly nonsense about "fight and flight" as an iridology topos ? It's the FIFTH such request. If you would care to get that cold shower afterall then you might do something useful for iridology, editor. How about that ? - irismeister 19:48, 2004 May 17 (UTC)


 * Nope to doing anything in "private" with you (yuck) and nope to discussing iridology with you either. You're not having much luck are ya. theresa knott 20:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good. Not doing much with you in Wiki either, I fell great relief :O°. Now try to focus, honey dear! Forget your brand new glistening boots (still dirty) and your WikiCop's hat. This is for the professional in you: How do you maintain those stupid sympathetic nervous system allegations, my dear ? Do you have some reference, any deep arcane knowledge, or is it only your point of view about how the iris stroma is innervated ? (seventh such request, vow clamantis in deserto - The Royal WikiCop Constabulary that is :O) - irismeister 06:48, 2004 May 18 (UTC) :O)

That cam links box looks terrible, and should be on the bottom of the page, if anywhere. Who chose that awful shade of orange for it anyway? Sam [Spade] 19:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Evidence at attempted reconciliation number 1

 * I think it's Mr NH's design. I agree it's revolting (sorry NH). I've deleted it. We don't need it here. theresa knott 20:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ha, ... Hah, Ha! And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde 07:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to fear john. No need to plead like that. No need to troll either. I'm having too much fun at the moment laughing at irismeister to rise to your baiting. theresa knott 08:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I am pleading with you point blank to stop the harassment you have been consistently inflicting upon me noted in the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing people(4.2 Decree A. & B.). It is about time that you stopped! -- John Gohde 19:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Theresugar, harassing John and saying sorry in the same breath makes you a dull girl. Go play elsewhere, this is Wiki, darling, and we don't have so much time for you today :O) - irismeister 06:43, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Questions *only* for the Irismeister

 * 1) How do you like the placement of the Eye right next to the Infobox on top of the article?
 * 2) What do you think about the infobox for this article?

Also, irismeister you cannot edit this article ... but, I can. So, what do you want me to change for you? -- John Gohde 07:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

We'll have to think it again, John. The only thing left that's outstanding is your welcome and knowledgeable contributions, complete with Infobox ON TOP where it BELONGS, and the infobox as it is. We have to perform laser surgery to carefully remove all other interpolations, starting with the "fight or flight" theresa-branded factoid. The pupil reacts to light but this has nothing to do with whatever changes in the iris stroma as a consequence of autonomic influx. Theresa can't tell the difference between pupil and iris, let alone muscles and vessels in the iris stroma. This ANS influx is too subtle and important to be left unexplained. I will come back with a shortcut, once I'm off with policing the police around us :O)


 * The top of the article still feels a little cluttered (I wish we had a little more control over the auto-generated TOC), but I think your work with the infobox and picture improved the look of the article a great deal, John. I do think you're a little quick to call Theresa's behavior as a "personal attack" or "harassment" -- she agreed with someone that the color of the infobox was bad and noted that you were the one who had made it (in response to Sam's question), while simultaneously apologizing to you (suggesting that it wasn't her intention to offend you, surely).  If someone thought the color of a box I made was revolting, well, I'm sure I wouldn't appreciate it much, but then taste differs.  And if you want to quote those findings of fact here, why not also remind your friend Dr. Jipa that calling people "stupid" or implying that they can't tell the difference between the pupil and the iris must be considered at least as rude as Theresa's comments?  The Dr. doesn't seem interested in discussing anything with me other than my status (according to him) as "Wikicop", else I'd do the deed myself.  May I ask what "interpolations" there are in the article?  Dr. Jipa has made several suggestions here, but has refused to offer even one citation -- I'm happy to add some of his suggestions if I can be given any assurance that more than a small group of iridologists believe them. Jwrosenzweig 19:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The top of the article still feels a little cluttered
 * No way! It surely doesn't! I can see that from two meters away from my screen - irismeister 12:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I wish 
 * Wish less and DO MORE ! irismeister 12:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I do think you're a little quick to call Theresa's behavior
 * Are you in all your minds ? Can't you interprete facts and see evidence- or you see only what you want to see ? - irismeister 12:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

If someone thought the color of a box I made was revolting, well, I'm sure I wouldn't appreciate it much
 * The color isn't the issue here. While you land smoothly and speak softly about the finer nuances of color, John is the only one to work for content (as I RESPECTFULLY DON'T - being BANNED by your Wikicop MANNERS). YOU ARE NOT HELPFUL ON THIS PAGE! You DIVERT everything from CONTENT to FORM! FOCUS, Wikicop, focus!. Before the straw in the color of the box, look at the LOG in your own eyes!. Look at Theresa doing NOTHING BUT HARASSING, DIVERTING, MAKING FOOL of HERSELF with DIRTY IMAGINATIONS and NEVER ANSWERING LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTENT. It's the eleventh time I now ASK HERE FOR THE STUPID, WIKI-BASHING "CONTRIBUTION" of Theresa on the "fight or flight explanation" to be REMOVED. ARE YOU DEAF ? Do it, and YOU CAN PLAY WITH COLORS AFTER THE FACTS are being put RIGHT as they deserve !!!! - irismeister 12:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

The Dr. doesn't seem interested in discussing anything with me other than my status (according to him) as "Wikicop", else I'd do the deed myself
 * No kidding ? Did you try to discuss the article's CONTENT ? DO YOU TRY IT NOW WHILE I'M STILL AVAILABLE BEFORE I GO VOMIT for the WAY YOU MISHANDLE, DIVERT, DESTROY this ARTICLE !!!! - irismeister 12:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

has refused to offer even one citation
 * You, David and Theresa keep DELETING them, stupid, with spurious idiotic rreasons like me advertizing wanieks and websites! Can't you UNDERSTAND ADVANCE OF KNOWLEDGE as a motif. Do you REALLY need to reduce every motivation to what you, David and Theresa can understand ? WAKE UP FELLOWS - there are still a few hard working people for the dozens of Wikicops. The only thing that keeps them CONTRIBUTING for FREE is an IDEAL. Throw dirt, more dirt, lies and more lies and they will GO ELSEWHERE where there is COMPETENCE and not WIKIPOLICE'.

I'm happy to add some of his suggestions if I can be given any assurance that more than a small group of iridologists believe them.
 * With all DUE LACK of respect, did you try to put your money where your mouth is ? Show me the money! Show me you read the DEMEA reference, Medlined, searched for and CONTRIBUTED by JOHN - THE ONLY SERIOUS, COMPETENT, NON-DIVERTING REAL EDITOR HERE! Do you expect me to pay a reprint for you or do you think I have all the time for you and Theresa in lieu of my MORE SERIOUS PATIENTS ?

must be considered at least as''' rude as Theresa's comments? '''
 * There is no need. Stupid is stupid, stupid! Keep it simple, stupid! Can't you read American? At least this KISS does not divert Wikilove !!!! What is more rude - banning the main contributor here for teaching decent data and setting the facts right FOR SIX MONTH and a 99% OVERHEAD PAPERWORK or calling a chick a chick ? You feign indignation for rude facts and PERPETRATE and PERPETUATE RUDE BEHAVIOR !!!! - You are bad mannered ! You make me lose my time !  A love that's feigned with bad intent, beats all the rudes you can invent  irismeister 12:34, 2004 May 19 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you should check out Infobox. Every WikiProject is supposed to pick an unique color.  This is what we did.  Our ugly infobox has been posted to Wikipedia:Infobox for quite some time now along with all the other ugly infoboxes.  Our color choice of #ffcc99 happens to be a safe color which means that it is supposed to work on all kinds of monitors and computer hardware setups.  It was our second choice. The first choice was a reddish-brown color. We are the only project officially using this color choice, although the album project color is also pretty close to our choice.  It has the virtue of being light in color so that the text is readable. At this point, we are only getting the project going.  Aggressively editing the text of selected CAM articles will happen around the end of summer 2004.  I do not want to get bogged down at this point on any one article or science kook. -- John Gohde 23:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, John, I didn't complain about the color at all. :-) I do think, though, that if someone feels a color is unattractive, saying "we needed to choose a unique color and we did" isn't really addressing the issue (On second thought, I think you did do a fairly good job of explaining the color selection - my apologies) -- although I think you're right that infoboxes are generally ugly.  Their usefulness needs to outweigh their aesthetic drawbacks, and I think yours has, in this case.  Theresa is free to disagree with me, of course.  Aggressive editing (hmm, that sounds hostile....is it supposed to?  Bold editing, though, is encouraged, and probably amounts to the same thing) sounds intriguingly vague.  And I'm not trying to bog you down (what do you mean by "science kook"?  Hopefully not me) -- if Irismeister wants to answer my question about interpolations, I think that makes the most sense.  You'd indicated that you were going to edit the article for Dr. Jipa and I wanted to make sure we were being careful with verifiable and sourced information, but perhaps your comment indicates you've changed your mind?  Anyhow, I think you're right on the color. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

'''Actually, John, I didn't complain about the color at all. :-) '''
 * Oh yeah ? And actually :O°) just what are you doing here, when JOHN ASKED A QUESTION to ME  SPECIFICALLY ? Are you color blind ? - irismeister 12:44, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

if Irismeister wants to answer my question about interpolations, I think that makes the most sense. Yeah, he wants - 'AT YOUR TURN, Bully Wikicop! I was answering JOHN's question, bad mannered Wikicop ! Or do you want to feel important in taking the LEAD. Take the waiting time as a perfect opportunity to re-read your cabbage and pasta contribution (it doesn't deserve the plain vanilla tag - AND YOU WILL GET THE PICTURE OF WHAT "INTERPOLATION" MEANS, stupid ! OR JUST GO AHEAD, speak for me, answer AT MY PLACE irismeister 12:44, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

verifiable and sourced information That is AUTHORED, EDITED, PUBLISHED and REVIEWED by me - an authority - and Waniek, Popescu, Olteanu and Demea and EVERYBODY ELSE I KNOW while you look the other way and feign they didn't exist !!!! - irismeister 12:44, 2004 May 19 (UTC)


 * The hip-hop music infobox is using basically the same ugly color. So, if it is good enough for the hip-hop crowd how bad can it be?  The color has grown on me and I rather like it now.  Perhaps, if you adjust your monitor? -- John Gohde 23:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how others doing something badly means you can too. Two wrongs don't make a right - David Gerard 23:27, May 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * David, there are dishonoring, Wiki-bashing idiotic additions by Theresa in the first paragraphs, and you keep talking hip-hop. Are you real ?


 * The hip-hop music infobox is no more wrong then ours is. -- John Gohde 23:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

To John
Please be patient, John. I know you are :O) - irismeister 12:52, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

To all
Folks, once I'm not sickened and HARASSED by interpolators, "fight or flight" contributors, leather-booted Wikicops, sensory-deprived, sexually-obsessed "sysops" advertising alleged charms while they draw tampons in Word, and by hip-hop color-box builders like David ANY MORE, I'll be back here with the real answer to John. In the mean time, thanks to your "contributions" for the last SIX MONTHS ROBBING MY TIME and RAPING my PATIENCE, I go vomit somewhere ! Yuck ! What a mess Wiki has become with ten Wikicops for each author ! - irismeister 12:52, 2004 May 19 (UTC)


 * Note to anyone reading this page and wondering what on earth irismister is on about

theresa knott 13:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) fight of flight is a bit that I put in the article after he claimed that iridology is legit because the iris is linked to the CNS. The faxct that i have actually done what he asked and removed it from the article seems to have escapedhis notice
 * 2) Leather booted wikicop refers to me. He calls me a cop because i pointed out that he inserted a link to his own website then lied about it.
 * 3) Advertising alleged charms again refers to me. He thinks that because i said "you fancy me don't you?" that i am offering myself to him. I am not. Sorry irisluster but I'd rather not if you don't mind.
 * 4) The person who drew the tampon diagram was User:Fabiform note that she has not actually spoken irisluster in months but that doesn't stop him attacking her now.
 * 5) I don't know if david's a builder, but i quite like the idea. ( Theresa stops typing to daydream a little)


 * These types of comments are precisely what using the SQGs will help to avoid in the future.

Be Bold TK while editing, NOT!

 * To TK, per SQG #7 I have removed the redundant controversey recently added in the introductory paragraphs. -- John Gohde 06:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There is nothing contraversial about saying that it is dismissed as pesudoscience by most medical professionals. I've put it back in as per "be bold" and "NPOV" guidlines theresa knott 07:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Now, that I am back from my special project, I will suggest that you actually read what "be bold" actually means.


 * Be bold in updating pages
 * "But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.
 * An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.


 * If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. Then, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:


 * Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
 * Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.


 * Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page."
 * -- John Gohde 07:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * John you are the person doing the deleting not me.theresa knott 08:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * TK, you are the person whose time is over. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 12:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Might like to know what exactly. Don't be so cryptic, I don't understand what you mean. BTW I'm glad to see you are feeling better. theresa knott 13:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It is contraversial because supporters of Iridology think that it is. Be bold while editing in the intro and you will offend editors and start an edit war.


 * The concept is very simple. If you want to voluntary stop the edit wars in CAM you don't put needless controvesey in the introduction of an article.  If you must repeat this duplicate information, then put it into the article below the introduction.  This concept is not my invention.  See SQG #7 for direct quotes from other editors. -- John Gohde 15:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Look it is a fact that this is the opinion of most mainstream medical doctors. Even iridologists must concede that. As for the duplication point I would say that the infobox is non NPOV as is simply states that it is peseudoscience. Therefore it's better to remove it from the infobox than from the intro. The point of an intro is to give a brief description of what the subject is all about. Leaving the psedoscience bit out of the intro removes an important aspect of the topic. It is not my intention to start edit wars, but i do insist that the quality of the article not be compromised in order to prevent themtheresa knott 15:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

-

 The faxct that i have actually done what he asked and removed it from the article seems to have escapedhis notice To replace with what, dear ? Can you do something properly without crying and begging for attention? Theresa, shut up - you are an embarassment for us all, trying the clean the mess, here, after you! Go use your Word Processor as a Thesaurus and not as an image editor, dear :O) Then go try to answer my question to the matter of iridology (12th such request) or else desist yourself like the nice little comic troll you are. Then stop trolling around medical articles, for in the last 6 months, with time lost with you, policing the wikicop you are, I could have become a millionaire :O°) I'm not bitter though. As you see, you entertain me after so much real work :O) By all means, do not stop now, without me finishing the enjoyment of the moment properly as I deserve, even with you :O) I had already thrown up, you know :O) - irismeister 13:39, 2004 May 19 (UTC)


 * I think I will go back to drawing my diagrams now. It was funny laughing at you for a while but it's time to go back to ignoring you now. Bye bye 'till next  time.theresa knott 14:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you dear! Now  this  is sensible - irismeister 14:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

... but keep your hands off the iridology article - you already killed it six times in six months!
Oh dear :O) I knew it! It's too attractive for her! She's addicted to scissors! Wiki arsonists employed in the Wiki fire department :O) Wikibutchers at work! Theresa, aka the "editor" messing the iris-pupil distinguo  now finessing the iris non-visual physiology :O° ) Wikicop invasion :°) HELP! This dying article is being massacred by the same Theresa who defigured it for the last 6th months! Don't expect me to clean the mess afterwards, again ! Theresa, dear, before you butcher whatever was left non-contaminated by your generous hands armed with scissors, try for once to focus on my iris-related question (13th such request) - irismeister 14:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)