User talk:Irishmeister
Hi, i'm that "any" in "that anyone can edit" and I'm against censhorship of irismeister's user page during the legal procedures for libel
Above was a photo of an Iraqi girl "liberated" by the invaders of her country. The legend ran like this:
From a fellow Wiki editor's page, chosen by me here, for doctors to think. This won't help her, but might help you...
Hi! I'm Dan, your Romanian Doctor based in France and travelling a lot, for instance also ein Berliner.
My main achievement is that I'm still around here.
Following is my original page, saved from selective censorship, wiki style:
This is my first year of experienced, seasoned Wiki editing. If you wish, I can share with you some of the techniques I learned in combat, in the for ever growing field of dealing with Wikipolice. I don't like tyranny, but I hate nobody and nothing. They are all needed, complete with tyrants who are always their own first victims. Besides, doctors need to help everybody, tyrants and beggars, policewomen and genii alike. Therefore, in the encyclopedia writing business, the key is as always in artful dosages of everything needed - the right words, the right fight, the right legal papers, just the right insistance, justice. Without tyranny, we'd become sybarites. When tyranny is dressed up and sexed as democracy, we are contemplating fascism in the making. Now this democracy is not the advertized freedom of choice between different flavors of diet coke (or else...). This democracy needs to be a continuously organized, civlized, non-murderous, highly spiritual fight against every single installed power that is. In Wiki, this is the police moronocracy. In the West, this is "globalization". We are living, inside the Western World, on the premises of the only such "civilization" not to rely on something more than our daily materialistic nonsense. Therefore, a continuous, aptly tuned and collective fight against tyranny in Wiki is, I'm afraid, mandated as a precondition of health. For this, you'll hate me, Theresa and Rosie, Gerard and Uncle Ed. But if you want me or the world changed, do like I do - start with yourself! And, as Stanley heard, just before he asked "what time?" in The Sons of the Desert, To catch up Ollie you've got to get up early in the morning! . I survived 97 bans in Wiki in my first year. Since I'm not hard banned yet, I offer one pint of beer to the admin doing the 100th (sorry - coffee only if it's TK :O) This is not a legal, repeat not a legal... treat. Hang on! :O)
I'm left handed.
Bandwagons of Wikipolice are after me. I receive public Wikithreats just as I am accused of threats of justice. I will force you out!! (Poor Uncle Ed :O) I'm the oldest "old hands" around here and I know how to work the system... Well, yeah, sure thing :O) I measured 83 percent of my time alloted to the English Wikipedia to have been spent answering less than curteous requests from a bandwagon of increasingly user hostile Wikipolice force. Talk about stealing time from generous volunteering. Half of my texts have been deleted for ever, sometimes just like that, in a single silent breath. Arbitrations? Three as I can remember. Requests for comments ? Half a dozen - with paperwork more detailed than I had to do when I answered similar requests for comments from Securitate. I've been banned several dozen times, and whenever bans expired, blocks didn't. Panicked admines tried to delete the log of blocks to try to avoid judgement of the abuse. I had to write to friends to let them manually unblock me :O)
Barnstar awarded to Irismeister by WikiUser 19:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the mean time I have been accused of being rude. For insisting to read loud evidence that Wikipolice wouldn't hear anyway, perhaps I was less than silent :O) I don't have the habit to shut up when brutes shout, "thinking" they think louder. However, since there is so much peace in my mind (that only freedom fighters at heart have deep entrenched in their soul) I wasn't. But, as a free man, my own, I always had a great time around here! But this is because I was never alone. None of you turned your eyes away when Wikipolice visited me and censored what I wrote, preventing me from exerting my freedom. I heard hundreds of stupid, or only childish "reasons" for my attempted silencing. Even when you said "duh", thank you for the hundreds of you who expressed support. We did a great job together, despite Wikipolice! Now it's time for me to retire in peace from the English Wikipedia, the most weird and user hostile of them all, and do what I promised. Please pardon me for being so willing to get all the heat from Wikipolice. As I warned this Wikipolice, it was all on purpose. One by one, they really have been more than helpful in providing all the evidence that was needed, so that others would not have to take this user hostile Wikilove and Wikiattitude any more! Justice, as I found out well carved in stone in the English Wikipedia, was a "threat". Malheur à la société qui est basée sur cette raison, comme disait Cherpillaud! I want to say good bye to all of you, legitimate idealistic, good sport editors, and active Wikipolice officers at large, and to remind you for the sake of humour, some of the great moments and best accomplishments in matters of human relationships we all "spent" together. The French say: puni soit-il par là où il pêché. And there is this Romanian saying, going like: Be the last who laughs, and you'll laugh longer :O)
Irismonster don't call TK or JR "baby" for this is considered personal attack in Wiki! (youknowwhobutIwon'tsaycausPakaranvandalizesmyuserpageifIdoandbansmeonthespot:O)
Don't get me riled up against you, or I will force you out!! (Poor Uncle Ed)
Irismeister is a quack and a nutcase. There! (Edmund. W. Poor )
Ah, that felt good to say! (Ed Poor)
I can't control my temper when he is around (Theresa Knott)
Leave a crystal clean paper trail so that the arbitration committee can ban this guy (Jimbo Whales)
He is driving me nuts (Theresa Knott)
It's very important, that we not ban Irismeister for behavior that others commit against him. (Jimbo Whales)
I can take it from him for as long as is necessary (Theresa Knott)
I am shivering in anticipation (Theresa Knott)
Flaming him is so bad - it deprives us of one of the cleanest reasons we have for getting rid of bad apples (Jim)
I fear his legal evidence of harassment (Jwrosenzweig)
We can even ban people because we don't like the word "iridology" (Fred)
Simply put, we don't *need* a clean paper-trail to ban anyone (Fred)
That he is a nutcase, although rude, is true (David Gerard)
Please forgive my stupid paradigm: I don't get it! Since when is justice a threat? Excuse me? Let me say this again: if "legal" is tied with "threat" in the same breath, are judges terrorists? Is libel chill only a new refrigerating technology? Am I called Dan in Hebrew for nothing, or justice will not be "Dan" :O) Good morning everybody :O)
In anticipation of my third request for comments and all, I have said to myself: Noone really trains the Wikipolice force online. But without them, there really wouldn't be any dictator. For tyrants elicit that special glow in the eyes of every Wikipolice officer, deep inside whom always lurks a future benevolent dictator. So let me imagine a small pamphlet, dedicated to their (reputedly impossible) satisfaction, for the field day of Wikipolice and their brave inspectors :O)
OK, folks, all Wikipolice force listen to me: On your feet, right - good morning troops - now sit! You'll try to keep quiet, take off your caps, silence your boots and listen. First of all, relax! You won't need any thinking. We'll do all the thinking for you. We don't ask you to suspend your reason. All you have to do is relax, and push on those Wiki policy links. They are your God. Because they are designed like this. They are what we call a NPOV - your Bible. Basically it's "we have all the answers, just fill in your question". So you may ask questions and interrupt at any time - no matter what question, that is. I will teach you that your questions need not be relevant. Nor irrelevant. They simply don't matter. We have ALL the answers - so you ask your questions, for they don't really matter being what we used to call a point of view.
So you are welcome! This is part one of ten in a crash course on the scientific police method. At the end of this crash course for dummies, you might be able not to tell any difference between your facts and out fiction. We'll use the scientific police method format, and a technique of Alternative Medicine called "case study".
What's that? Good question , underintendent Wikiencop! Look, I'll put this in your simple police words: Before the Big Pharma Sharks (BPS) era, this was also a technique applied to conventional medicine, which is now dead (having fought for the cause of industrial profit and not for the patient's best interest.) Now this course I teach you, and that kinky Alternative Medicine are the only places in the world where case studies still have the value of evidence. By the end of this course you'll be able to scientifically forget it!
OUR HYPOTHESES
The shadows of Wikipedia nourish static, malarial swamps where many worms loom. Don't worry - this is normal. This is how things are supposed to be BY DESIGN! But this is not what you are supposed to clean - just let those bad apples rot! This is what YOU are supposed to maintain, for without it, there would be no progress!
What? Thank you superintendent R. O. Guildenstern! Right, -er... -er. OK. Here's what: The single most destructive side of Wikipedia is OUR attitude. BEWARE - you will need to keep this attitude for as long as you are Wikipolice!
But of course, detective seargent Wikiholister! This is "Catch as catch can", and then "insult, harass and ban". Thank you. Now you may sit down!
These two steps are COMPULSORY. They must be applied to all qualified contributors who once made Wikipedia an idealistic, great thing but have become useless thanks to the rampant acquisitions of the advanced cut'n'paste culture.
Remember: They need to be reinforced permanently!
YOUR MATERIAL AND METHODS
Never, ever, refer to EVIDENCE as FACT or EVIDENCE. This is not for you to say. We say which is which. When in doubt, refer to the Wikipolice manual of style (of course it's offline, seargent, you may sit down now!) : USE "CLAIM" for any indisputable thing. If an editor you are assigned to harrass points to the sun and says "this will rise tomorrow morning from the eastern side of the Channel", just take a doctoral posture and say, gravely: Your-claim-is-only-a-hypothesis! What-is-your-evidence? If the editor you are assigned to ban (you'll ban her no matter what she does, we give you the list of good apples and you'll keep the rotten ones in the swamp - it's an order!) points to the sun, then turn the light off, remote control the curtain (PUSH CLOSE), and then ask, doctorally: "I-said-where-exactly-is-your-EVIDENCE-line-number-and-bibliography-is-it-on-Google?". If the editor still insists, OK, write to me, and I'll find where she brutalized you, trust me. OK, stop laughing now! - you can pretend to be personally attacked at any moment, at your leisure. In fact it's part of your job description. Besides, that's your order!
Look at the case study of "editor" Keresa T.T. Not (not her real user name - in order to avoid her feigned embarassement).
She edits what? Right, thank you, inspector! NIL, ZERO, NADA - NO ARTICLES since years!
So what, she contributes NOTHING, if you count out a few sixth-grade drawings de novo donated to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (sorry - it's Veteran Administration - OK - whatever, she knows best). You said? GNU - Genius? Jee-en-you? Whatever! Lambast yourself, you Cockney flabbergaster! Stop laughing!
Now look at her complete records. What do you see, underintendent Ross I. E. N. Krantz? Good! That's it. When she does not revert articles and does not supress evidence (her main occupation) she paints tits, like the king's jester, in order to amuse the fools.
Besides this better part of her Wiki front page, she could not carry on a discussion on the basis of logical arguments. So what? She can always say she is not "convinced" - REPEAT: "the evidence didn't convince me". And then, revert! Revert for 2.5 times in a row, so that the third reversion whould be Galileo's. That's what you should do. Simply by avoiding to look through a telescope, the Vatican could in ALL GOOD FAITH remain the RULER of the skies for three hundred years! That, underintendent, is the power of EVIDENCE!
Now what? Good! Of course she asks for exact references, feigning to forget that she has just censored them.
The bottomline is as simple as this: She can't tell fact from her own fiction world. She is now an accomplished Wikipolice administrator.
Did this ring the bell? Good! You are making progress. She is your role model! Follow her. In line! Ranks! You are the future and the pride of the Wiki nation!
She is not alone though. Her intellectual standards are now the norm. Deep entrenched, very deeply entrenched in the cut'n'paste culture, as her main reference is the Google search box.
OK, she doesn't know that word processors have been developed in order to process words, not pictures. Who cares?
She can't even write English properly. There should be no doubt about this particular point, given her front page advertizing her use of word processors in... painting buckets and spades. Who cares?
Embarassing as this is, Wikipedia always finds, always did and always will find sympathetic ears for her, pretending that she only "types" wrongly. That doesn't prevent her to cry on the shoulders of Rosie, off Wiki, using masonic handkerchief gestures, so that Rosie (not her real user name - in order to avoid her feigned embarassement) could ban her current oponent whom she can't convince by using logic arguments formulated in plain English. did you see? Good. This is how it works, this is how it worked, this is how it'll always work! For such "meritocratic" Wikipedic attitudes really empower more than dummies. They empower the branded, growing, Wiki-wide Wikipolice attitude, a trademark, (GNU license notwsithstanding) - about as brutal and mindless as this can ever get. this is the future, folks!
Wikipedia needs the brutes you are, in order to chase away considerate people who thought well of it.
So, feel free. You are all welcome!
If these stupid idealists came on Wiki, and wrote whatever they knew best for it, idealistically, the stupid idiots must be "milked", and then chased away. For they already did what they were supposed to, and now they have to leave the bandwidth for your, and Keresa's far more important activities. You will follow in Keresa's footsteps, folks! And that's an order!
OUR RESULTS - YOUR STANDARDS
Do you think that you'll be intimidated by articulate newcomers? Think again! Not only Wiki has no plan to deal with the real editors, who are on their own, once they edited and produced what they had to, being stupid enough. Wiki has growth plans only for Wikipolice. We call this the "quies custodiet ipsos custodes fallacy". Wiki protects police until YOU, the Wikipolice - YOU become so self-important that YOU'LL CRAVE FOR IT AND FEEL AN URGE, A NEED to regulate everything around, including ALL legitimate intellectual debates. AGAIN, this is the future, folks! Live up to it!
Feel no embarassment, ever! You are most welcome as Wikipolice. In fact you are the only ones really welcome in Wiki. Given that stupid feature of mankind which makes it for ever prone to thicken the bases of high interest pyramids, there will always be enough numbers of newcomers to help us - and YOU grow for free :O°) He he he :O)
What did you say, overintendent Schmidt ? What was supposed to be a good will collaborative work has become an obstacle? What? ... a continuous chase for intellectuals? Intellectuals Who - whatta ? - trying hard, in the short time span left between their serial bans - trying hard you say, to convince... police not to supress evidence?
But of course, future officers! I'm glad you raised the issue for I wanted to raise it myself in due time. Did you think, even for one minute that Wiki values value? He he. You must change your profession then. Look, in Wikipedia all contributors, instead of concentrating on their work, will use all their Wiki time in order to bring evidence in front of Wikipolice.
This is keeping them busy for useless things, FOR EVER. Because the Wikipolice officers you will all become at the end of this crash course, can't read it anyway. When you will not be banging your boots patrooling in pecking order on talk pages, and you will be not entertaining the fools with Word paintings, you simply will become too important to even care for learning basic English. For basic English courses are so badly needed, complete with spellling classes and word processing alphabetization, future officers. But you are too important, IMPORTANT, got it, to lose your time with such nonsense. This is only nonsense suitable for the underclass of editors. Besides, let me tell you a secret! Word processors, when not used for drawing, have an ability that undermines the working underclass of editors - they correct your spelling. The only trouble is that you need to know what you want to spell correctly. But that's another story.
Police force, we are reaching the final moments of this part one crash course. wake up! You will learn to avoid calling this Wikipolice activity an... encyclopedia! The number of articles on your day time fantasies, complete with drawings tampons, masturbation and coprologic material HAS to surpass the number of medical articles. THAT'S AN ORDER!
What credibility is there in a Wikipolice "editor" who uses her user page to advertize her need for "good sex" instead of learning basic English spelling? ALL CREDIBILITY THAT'S NEEDED! Wikipolice, you have to become what your culture is! Leave your old shy habits in the cupboard!
SUGGESTED (REINFORCED) INTERPRETATION
Here is your main job: Repeat after me and learn it by heart: DI-VER-SION. This is your daily bread! Diversion is the name of the game. Once a contributor has been "milked", it's up to you, honorable Wikipolice which will take over, to silence him and get him out of the picture!
YOUR ORDERS (USED TO BE CONJECTURES)
Step in right now, and start your daily dirty business. Insult, libel and ban! Use these canned links to accuse them of anything you care! Do not be gentle - this kills you. Be NORMATIVE. PULL SLEEVES. ASK FOR EVIDENCE YOU JUST DESTROYED - this will silence even the nutcases! There is one thing you have to know: you will never manage to hide under the carpet the scandalous facts about your illiteracy. But remember: WHO CARES? You are the FUTURE of our society, so you'd better get used to your JOB right now! Should something happen, we'll protect YOU as per out contract. But for once, THINK: Who will really attack police? Do you think these stupid idealistic editors are that stupid as to challenge your boots?
THAT WILL BE YOUR CONCLUSION!
Regarding bans: use them liberally. They will amuse some authors, and their lawyers. But busy as they will be, documenting your job of censorship and libel as completely as they can, they'll only do their part of the plot. By using trusted third parties to collect data, we too have some dirt left at hand. Dirt is waiting for you to use it! Your employer, Wiki, gives away work for lawyers too, and this is progress, folks - none of your business! Take this idiotic rrismeistei (not her real user name - in order to avoid her feigned embarassement) who wants to make the world better! She'll be busy even after her 1001th ban, only to try keeping up requests for comments. She'll be suffocated only by trying to answer your stupid questions, let alone contribute something new! She is beyond reasonable help!
Did you really think, even for only one moment that her case study will become a public trial for Wikipedic habits? She was only provoking your intelligence, future police officers! She was teasing you to see the stuff you were made of! Big deal! We all know who you are, don't we? The very week you ban her, in several jurisdictions, corresponding to the legal needs, a trial will start against the main group of insulting "editors" using censorship and libel. But that was planned. We took our precautions too. For there is more in the picture than underintendent Keresa thinks she thinks in her philosophy (What, horatio? That's another course, dummy): Hundreds of editors have already given up their contributions. They were disgusted. So we did our job properly. Wikipedia was deserted by quality people and became the tampon-insertion subject of scorn. These are our values! Promote them, or you'll be laid off!
Why on Earth did we fear so much as to make contingency plans against legal "threats". Are you all out of your minds? Since when has justice become a threat for us? Look what, if any of you fear justice, as only dummies do, it means you already feel guilty. And guilty you will remain, until justice is done. But Justice does not exost for you, police. You are above and beyond it - as any progressive force of our Western societies! Justice is buzzword for dummies. We do police, we don't do justice. Let's do it right now. You have the next move.
COPYRIGHT NOTE
This study has been published according to the GNU licence and is not an rrismeistei trademark. We all share collective authorship responsibilities for it. All other trademarks quoted here are the property of their respective owners. Parts of this study may be quoted on a bona fide basis, under the "fair use" doctrine - for the Wikimedia Foundation and other "educational purposes". Rrismeistei wants to thank Ms. Keresa T. T. not and Mrsses Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern (not their real names to avoid thier feigned blushing while standing your ovation) for willingly contributing study material. According to Wikipedic culturese, using the word "milking" in Wikipedia is ground for banning and deemed offensive, while "nutcase" and "tits" are not. Beware! Use Sir in the same farse (that's phrase folks - we are still in Wiki) with your insults, for you might be accused of libel. Good. Now you can dismiss. Garde à vous! Rompez!
[edit] On Freedom of Speech
[edit] Le mythe de l'indépendance
À New York, lors d'un banquet, le 25 septembre 1880, le célèbre journaliste John Swinton se fâche quand on propose un toast à la liberté de la presse.
« Il n'existe pas, à ce jour, en Amérique, de presse libre et indépendante. Vous le savez aussi bien que moi. Pas un seul parmi vous n'ose écrire ses opinions honnêtes et vous savez très bien que si vous le faites, elles ne seront pas publiées. On me paye un salaire pour que je ne publie pas mes opinions et nous savons tous que si nous nous aventurions à le faire, nous nous retrouverions à la rue illico. Le travail du journaliste est la destruction de la vérité, le mensonge patent, la perversion des faits et la manipulation de l'opinion au service des Puissances de l'Argent. Nous sommes les outils obéissants des Puissants et des Riches qui tirent les ficelles dans les coulisses. Nos talents, nos facultés et nos vies appartiennent à ces hommes. Nous sommes des prostituées de l'intellect. Tout cela, vous le savez aussi bien que moi ! »
(1880-09-25 Cité dans : Labor's Untold Story, de Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, NY, 1955/1979.)
WITH ENEMIES SUCH AS THESE, WHO NEEDS HELP ? :O)
Beware ! Tyranny
Wikipedia is a police state moronocracy. This means the tyranny of morons, dressed up and sexed, so that they might fool the base of a pyramid scheme. They also look like pirates, but they are not up to the task, and therefore unworthy of the qualification of “ piratocratic oligarchy ”. I thought it was possible to contribute quality material to Wiki. Sadly, six month later, I found out it's not. Why did that happen ? I tried to test the following hypothesis : Wiki is no better than its police. The method was a six month immersive assignment. The material was a honeypot. The results are here : I caught a few Wikipolice flies and a huge male bee. The implications are tremendous : Basically, here is how Wikipedia works : Say you want to contribute. You volunteer your time and energy to document, author and edit whatever you happen to know best. This is the bright part of your Wiki career, and it takes less than 10 % of your time. 90 % of it is spent in dealing with “ contributors ” who are supposed to help you. Now what they do is first of all to patronize you. They gently massage your spine so that it will bend easily. Then they rub it until you are “ accepted ”, meaning you are in for the trouble of reading a ton of canned stuff, aka “ Wikirules, Wikilove, Wikipolice ” and other rubbish.
The name of the game
Wikirules may be nonsense for you, but they basically make sure for them that they will rob everything they can from what you do, that you can't say a word that does not please their ears, and that you co operate into submission in the best Stockholm syndrome tradition. They also empower Wiki thought police officers aka sysops and administrators who do nothing but prevent you from working right. Don't like it ? Hang on, there is more to come : Here is how they do it : They harass you, they intimidate, insult, use brute force against you, they come in pairs, like a pack of wolves in pecking order, and delete in a second, without warning, what you took months to build into something solid. There are countless examples. There is no use for you to lose time with it unless you have to, like I did, during my assignment. You may wonder, like me, what are the deeper causes of such a great project becoming a nightmare for the newcomers, which make up for the best part in the base of their oligarchic pyramid.
Pyramids
For Wiki is nothing but an old pyramid scheme sexed up. Wikipedia is only a giant with soft legs. It used to grow as long as newcomers were fooled into contributing for nothing. For a time, like any inert, mindless, directionless body, it will keep adding momentum. But like any other old pyramid scheme, it will crush onto its base once people discover how it works, or only the moronocracy in it.
The "Famous Fallacy" of NPOV
I have to warn you against the Famous Fallacy. This refers to the NPOV (non-point of view) editing thing. What is NPOV editing? It's castration and annihilation of volunteer contributors, at worst, and fiction at best. In the nitty-gritty, day-to-day “ co-operative authoring ” NPOV is wreaking havoc. NPOV is a hammer in the hands of barbarians. NPOV is the opium of the Wikipolice. With it, as a slogan, any moron behaving like a savage foot in huge boots shoots everybody in their leg. NPOV is the school bus finessing its parking movements inside the glass menagerie of fine arts. NPOV is also talk pages outweighting articles by a factor of one hundred to one. Everybody in talk pages is talking nonsense. Nobody listens. Cacophonies are aggravated by edit wars, people are insulting and shouting at each other, and lose 90% of their time in such nonsense called “ co-operative authoring ”. Why is this happening ? Are contributors enjoying the SM game? I don't think so. Of course this happens, because me, like any other human being, would like to be listened to, pampered as an author, or at the very least not insulted in nine out of every ten written words. And also because me, like yourself, and many other people, are the worst characters that existed :O)
More catholic than the Pope
But there is more : How come there is a “ NPOV ” bias to start with ? Well, my answer is very simple : There is no such thing as a NPOV. Indeeed, any rational human being would immediately react to the humongous, fictitious NPOV fraud ! For everything is a point of view, including the so called NPOV. Even God has a point of view. So are these morons dressed in Wikipolice fatigues acting like pirates let loose in a virtual world which is way beyond sense ? They seem so. However, they are not simply mindless brutes. They really believe there is such thing as a NPOV. So they deserve the lot of all those indulging in hybris : They are served with the very fiction they create, until they become saturated, sick and tired. Look behind you ! From the Athenian tyrants through the Inquisition and the French Revolution, all fictitious “ more catholic than the Pope ” players lost their war by the very rules of their fiction. Kronus ends up eating his own offspring. Until one of them becomes so indigest that the physiological process of throwing up the extra mouthful of your own stuff kills digestion.
How could it work?
Wiki could work if Wikipolice knew everything, could de everything, and if everybody would mean well. Clearly, egos, extra hidden agendas, and the facts accumulated so far show that the third condition is wishful thinking. And I'm not even sure about the first two. With wolves of the Steppes nobody would make up a good body of guardians for the flock of Wiki would be authors. Such wolves can produce nothing more than they understand : Misery, assasination, and theft. Plus the insult of hypocrisy over the injury of murder. That is, they will only cry wolf with chunks of lamb inside their big mouths.
Conclusion
Whoever is tolerant with the wolf is very cruel to the lamb. Authorship is both the soul and the flesh of all public manifestation. The bones make up for the rest of whatever moral fibers still exist. All of these could never be annihilated, no matter what “ overwhelming force ” is used, for this is the essence of things. We all have something to say because we are not the mindless stats which the governing bodies think we are. Their authority, by the way, is only derived from the consent of the governed. This was democracy, not a privileged, oligarchic caste ruling, not a thought police, and surely anything but tyranny. Once America was founded on the founding fathers' generous principles, things were very promising. With technoanimism and reliance on “ overwhelming force ” (of which Wikipedia is a “ cultural ” by product), the inevitable devolution and bitter fall of a society losing touch with sense, humanity, care, and reality, is here to stay. Sadly, Wikipedia has become a symptom of this rapid decay. Let's hope it will not take the time and contaminate the minds of generous, authentic and candid would-be new contributors.
| "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM The CONSENT OF THE Governed." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS" |
[edit] REFERENCES FOR WIKI MOTTOs # 1, 2 and 3
01. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, 1776
02. First Amendment, BILL OF RIGHTS, 1791
03. LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS, 1863.
[edit] WIKI MOTTO # 4 and 5
Truth will not make us rich, but it will make us free!. (Will Durand)
²nd WARNING: Thinking freely may endanger your career as an editor for the Wiki Foundation!
[edit] Sam Witch Hunted for Thoughtcrime
[edit] Sam, I Reject the Witch Hunt against Yourself!
[edit] Sam's Political Trial for Thoughtcrimes. Highly NOT reccommended!
[edit] Folks, you've made rfcs a sort of rite of passage for Wiki editors...
Hey, folks, leave Sam alone! He was one of my most active and fierce critics for edits on Iridology. But hey, are you after witches or something? Leave the man/lady/Wiki editor at large just as he/she is - free and alone! Or I'll report your acts as a fascist deviation! The right to free speech includes leaving people free to think as they deem fit. If they express themselves, it's there inalienable right. Raising files with profiles and then spamming editors with "urgent" nonsense and stuff raises specters of political police! When I was younger I myself had a huge file in Securitate for opposing communism. I wish not see this experience again! For anybody! If you don't like what Sam thinks, say so, write to him, demonstrate in front of him with facts and your stuff that his opinions are not yours, etc. But don't carry him to Salem for more witch*hunting. Duh! Disgusting! - irismeister 23:01, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
[edit] On Editing Emergencies
[edit] Harassing editors until they are disgusted
Dear visitor, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here . Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
[edit] On "Arbitrations" and de-adminship
[edit] Proof of blatant double standards
Request here was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in public Wiki space where this can be put without it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'quarantaine quarters. On the contrary, if admin complainants care to carry active editors in ludicrous "arbitrations" without trying to resolve dispute first, such complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel encouraged to "admin" even more in such masturbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action, de facto, and automatically requesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my request is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - but Wikipolice "maintanance" as usual. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O) irismeister 14:27, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed practical measures
- systematic inclusion of "Wikicreative indices" (WICI) on each editor's personal page;
- automatic addition of the "Wikipolice tag", when attributed by computed stats to personal signatures;
- real-time measures of the "Wikicreative index";
- NEVER delete thispage, even after I'm gone for good. This is essential for newcomers. They absolutely need this warning, so that their would-be, bona fide volunteer contributions would not be exploited.
- FINAL WARNING In my own half-year assignment I had to deal with aggressive, brutal, ignorant Wikipedia:Wikipolice. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia has become a piratocracy. Basically, you would give time, energy, knowledge away for free, only to be insulted and libelled. That's how piratocracies work: They grab what they can and then they boast and tap each other on their respective shoulders about how democratic they are. They aren't. They are only pathetically brutal pirates, giving themselves a collective treat by pampering their "position" in wolf packing-order. If you want to give it a try at your turn, be ready to lose enormous amounts of time of your life, only because Wikipedia:Wikipolice takes advantage of your life, and try to smear you or your ideals, dragging you into unnecessary babysitting sessions with the incredibly ignorant "peers". Consider yourself warned! - irismeister 12:21, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
Your Wikifellow caught here live, at last, even
if only in Purkinje images (here first). Watch monkey :O)
Monkey veery naaaughtiee :O)
He is... two ! :O)
Since there are two irides...
Click here for the original version of the above !
"We are in the process of creating
what deserves to be called the idiot culture.
Not an idiot sub-culture, which every
society has bubbling beneath the surface
and which can provide harmless fun;
but the culture itself. For the first time,
the weird and the stupid and the coarse
are becoming our cultural norm,
even our cultural ideal."
Carl Bernstein
(Not one of the president's men,
Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter)
See the Favorite quote of the day
section. This is perhaps the best part
of this page, which explains why I'm here :)
WHAT'S NEW
Irismeister has finished gathering evidence for a monstrously big case against the fascist penchant of Wikipedia. I hereby publicly thank all those candid or only stupid admin/sysop/police/whatever caring to answer my deliberately provocative and elaborate evidence-gathering process. I'we nailed you, fascists :O) You bet you'll think twice about your career as Wikipedic "editors" after the facts are made public - Look for legal papers with your usual interest, for they are coming to all of you any time now and soon enough for a public show about the nakedness of Wiki Emperesses ! I'm happy I could find such incredible numbers of gullible anglo-american would-be fascists and organize a Nuremberg trial based on evidence they so eagerly supplanted. The days of censorship and fake "ban you for personal attack" policies used as a figleaf for brutish force are over. Hang on to your mice, fellas - you'll need them badly :O) - irismeister 11:56, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
Irismeister has received his first and most
treasured Wiki award: @)----^--
Irismeister's WANTED :O) In concertationwith my counsels and friends, I mightdecide to return here, despite, or perhaps because of the current campaign against me. However, contributing new, inedite and expert material to Wiki (in fields I feel familiar enough, where I can also make a quality contribution) is pending decision of my fellow editors, complete with legal advice on libel, arbitration, and excuses from Theresa and her fabulous buddies. We expect these excuses to be addressed to the entire Wiki community in writing, not to myself. Happy editing :O) irismeister14:27, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC) My favorite Wiki quotes for Free Speech Watch "The Wikimedia Foundation has no legal obligation to let all viewpoints be heard." "We can even ban people because we don't like the word "iridology", because it makes my head hurt trying to pronounce it." "Or we can ban people because having a name ending in "idology" irritates us." "The Wikimedia Foundation does not like User:Iridology, and no longer chooses to permit him to publish his material on our website" is a good enough reason." And these absolute Wiki editing gems: "You can assure me he's making the whole thing up, but I don't have the money or time to risk it." "I can't control my anger when he is around." I hope it's not an omen -- I'd hate to think all this ends with a slap on the wrist. "His incoherent ravings cast too much doubt on the value of his edits for me to condone his continued participation here. Irismeister is a quack and a nutcase. There! (Ah, that felt good to say!) References http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010790.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010784.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010780.html So much for free speech, accuracy of information and "termination" of opposing viewpoints !!! [edit] On Welcoming Visitors: Everybody is welcome here ![edit] Hello to you, Wikipedian Fellow,I come from the middle of this black hole, not from a fool's paradise! Afterall, medical doctors like myself should always stop hurting others with industrial concoctions... Remember primum non nocere?... Why don't we all keep doing some real healing, starting with ourselves, like in cura te ipsum? I like those stats showing mortality going south when doctors are on endless strikes. So I switched to some old Abaric, not barbaric medical stuff instead. Here at your right, like in Charmides 157a, Purkinje reflexions of the world at large, including photographers, are visible in the area of the pupil. They make it possible for our two, apparently distinct worlds to be united in a single image. For are they really more distinct than reflections vs. reflectors ? At last !
[edit] On Quotes of the DayWe are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal. Carl Bernstein (Not one of the president's men, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter) [edit] On Bragsheet and Wiki Stats
[edit] On Work in Progress:[edit] Right as you read this:[edit] Conventional Medicine (CM)[edit] Talk about it, Stanley! This was "redirected" out of sight. Cunctator believes facts in that article to be an "essay" and as such, does not want to see them and censors them. Therefore his POV prevails. For those less interested in Cunctator's POV, the article is still here - probably not for long.[edit] Purkinje[edit] Purkinje Images[edit] Aaland archipelago[edit] Aaland Island Eye Disease[edit] Romanian Orthodox Church[edit] Iridology
[edit] Abaris the Hyperborean or Αβάρις Υπερβορέος[edit] Phaistos Disk[edit] Anatomy of the Iris[edit] Primum non nocere[edit] Proto-Ionian Theory[edit] Charmides[edit] Iris Stromal Patterns[edit] Cura te ipsum, medice ![edit] Limba română[edit] Discul din Phaistos[edit] Gând bun de început[edit] "Well, well, well... well... Well...!"[edit] "You were right, Stanley ! United we stand... Divided we fall..."[edit] Why Scanning the Iris for Biometric Purposes is Wrong[edit] On To Do Lists for...... after Thursday, 2012-March-1, at exactly 15:50 Universal Time, [edit] On Free Speech Watch[edit] Two Case StudiesHere are two case studies. Enjoy two of my current articles, those about Primum non nocere and Iridology in their full, original version. They raised more than a few eyebrows : ) [edit] I can almost feel like having to catch the next plane : )They were edited mercilessly . I have no problem about that, having been trained in patience even before I had to pass exams on patient-doctor relationship : ) I do have a problem though, because they have been cut and redirected towards the general direction of the galactic red shift before I even got a chance to write them : ) For instance, if you look at the time stamps on the page history section, you may get the whole picture. Are there more regulators than authors in Wiki ? I don't think so. The regulators are only aggressive, according to the current "mantra" of the American popular culture of overwhelming force. They don't know about wisdom, patience and alternative thinking. They simply step in, don't read anything, but cut everything, having the sentiment that they did a good job. It's an illusion. This regulating culture is only based on the common sense, patience and sometimes even inertia of the pyramid's base. Most considerate people simply do not climb to the apex only to enjoy the scenery of the growing pyramid of all the others. The fact that less considerate regulators see no problem in climbing on the shoulders of others (only to cry louder) is a melancholy recent Wiki development. I'm afraid this raises a larger problem: We are talking about limits in anything, including Wiki and free speech. Componentization of culture, disruption of its integrity by vandals, editing experts, and knowledge administrators is rampant. Under the aegis of NPOV as a sort of new cult, or absolutism, castration and neutralization become the name of the game. People innocent in the history of culture shout louder and make new cultures on top of what they simply don't care to get sleeves dirty in. In a temptative personal conclusion, two fundamental flaws endager Wiki, an otherwise generous idea: [edit] On Incompetence by DesignThe first flaw I see is a Wiki-endorsed invitation for non-competent people to police authors and the authoring process. This first flaw is dangerous in that no immediate or obvious mechanism exists for maintaining Wiki meritocracies. Authors that are vandalized by peer editors simply pack their stuff and go elsewhere. Everybody is a loser as a consequence. The second flaw is even more insiduous and potentially perverting the bases of generous Wiki principles. It will therefore be described a little more carefully: When one places himself above the others and generously teaches them how they ought to think, while the very forces, knowledge and good will of others are taken for granted, we're in for some deeply disturbing trouble: Such junk thinking simply sucks everything out of the knowledgeable environment (by mimicking a generous great attractor ) and then, once its blood taken, it discards everything into a septic tank: That is, without mercy, without compassion and even without understanding of the deeper inner workings of the thing they think they can jump on or only by. That is, also, arrogantly neglecting all things fundamentally linked to the definition of humans. As one ex-director said about the international financial system, if the bloodletting treatment kills the patient, then we should have drawn more, for lo, there were a few more drops left! Afterall, there are, statistically, better chances for more new desperates to jump into the pyramid's basement than for regulators to step down and stop the bloodshed. Good old pyramid theory - only with the time factor left out for the sake of instant satisfaction. [edit] On WorkaroundsThe collective memory of humanity transmitted this time-proven, foolproof quies custodiet ipsos custodes old caveat named rule of law. According to this caveat, one would rather die than place himself above the others, including his enemies, just to keep the rule of law alive and well. If there is an absolute and non-negotiable thing, then the rule of law thing must apply. For just about every name of the game in most cultures, including Wiki is generosity in separation of powers. Arbiters that become players and players that give their own names to their game never offer a beautiful performance. When one makes the law, and basically brings the end of evil with his law, then he becomes a local cult leader, but freedom of speech and rule of law become, per definitiam the collateral damage of his ultimately just law. Truth is not the first casualty of war, it is the cause of war because if we care more for our own lies, and start believing our own lies, war is peace... To get out of this logic, we had that dreaded freedom of speech thing: I know you are a POV author, but for your right to write down your POV, I sacrify my NPOV training and recognize I regulate as just yet another POV :) In conclusion, my standpoint is that freedom of speech is not important for democracy. It is democracy ! Neither adhocracy nor some well-painted, refurbished, brand new (put your own qualifying flavor of) kleptocracy. Now look what happened: Case stories are interesting because they do not disregard the individual under some personalization mantra. I happen to enjoy a thirty-years-old passion for the vertebrate iris. Some of it was turned into dozens of published stuff, plus a few Wiki contributions. It came out as something worse than you can imagine, so that even a bunch of high-school editors cut it without reading it. If you like Jumbo Whales, I still prefer the humpback avatara : ) Please compare with the relevant parts in the talk section for each page ! Be your own judge !!! [edit] On IridologyIridology textually means logos and iris, or talking about the iris. Iridology is hard to define, as this whole article stands proof. It is certainly and objectively a fast growing alternative medical branch. The legitimate public concern about its value is not matched by current available information. It has unique potential as this is the only such discipline that currently has an official medical explanation in anatomical, physiological and epidemiological terms. Most people and institutions involved in endorsement or rejection of iridology simply do not have the necessary qualifications to judge it, so when one really does, the neutrality of this article is disputed. Wikipedians are invited to use reason and the following information and see for themselves whether or not iridology, like most other things, has a place under the sun. [edit] Definitions[edit] The Whole SpectrumDespite whatever usual etymology and abuse of naming conventions might connote, iridology is not equivalent with science of the iris, or study of the iris. There is neither monopoly nor trademark for the use of terms such as iridonomy for iridology like astronomy vs. astrology. However, there is a trademark for the wider, all encompassing, probably more correct umbrella term iridial studies. All such names however, maintain the vertebrate and even the chordate iris as definiendum and logical, rational study as definiens. [edit] ConsensusA consensual definition is the following: Iridology is a controversial method attempting to diagnose conditions of an individual's health by examining the irides of the eyes. [edit] Practical AspectsIts practitioners maintain that locations in the iris charts somehow correspond to distant locations in the body and as such, accurately indicate their particular state of health well in advance of other signs and symptoms. They also interprete the iris stromal phenomena in context and never apply a grid over an iris image just to read some rigid tags there. [edit] Historical AspectsPhilippus Meyeus (Philip Meyen von Coburg) is currently the first European author known to have revived this ancient knowledgeable field of studies in Chiromatica Medica, a work published in 1665 and reprinted in 1670 and 1691. It seems, from a careful revision of the whole body of knowledge of the higher antiquity, that iridology (or the equivalent of what we name as such today), was in widespread, indeed ubiquitous use for the ancients. For instance, Plato in Charmides explicitely mentions the medicine of Abaris the Hyperborean with some extremely interesting detail - to be found there. [edit] How Iridology "Works"[edit] What iridologists doIridologists inspect the patient's eyes. They use observation and a lot of empirical knowledge to draw inferences from their clinical examination. Some use photographs, although most resent them for not providing live detail. Very few use image analysis Almost every structure of the stroma and every fine feature of Iris (anatomy) is investigated, though: From the iris ridge between pars ciliaris and pars pupillaris iridis to the pupillary ruff, and from pupil mean size, pupil dynamics, pupil form, or pupil position to color, texture, pigmentation, and collagen resilience, all detail of remarkably fine granularity is interpreted. More specialized iridologists insist on the pattern of Klumpenzellen and contraction rings, on the size, evolution, disposition and bordering of the stromal crypts of Fuchs. The paraphernalia of the iridologic trade is sometimes impressive and it includs the study of the occasional Brushfield spots, of heterochromia iridis and heterochromia iridium. Many iridologists claim that they infer statements about health only by looking into such detail. [edit] What iridologists don't doIridologists do not diagnose disease. They only look into a fuzzy concept named weakness. They predict that some health problem may develop, and usually make common-sense recommendations based on hygienic principles of life, targeted on the particular body organ systems (including digestive, excretive, musculo-skeletal) that they "found" inherently weak in the corresponding iris location. There is no consensus between the few dozen iridological schools as to what really is the iris stromal phenomenology that backs such prediction, whether the iris pattern really changes in time, whether they investigate a pattern of transparencies, and even about the names they use for the anatomical structures in the iris. [edit] What physiologists sayThere is, however, a growing consensus that there are physiological bases for the relationship between the aspect of the iris and health. The iris pattern changes in time, sometimes slowly and discreetly, sometimes drastically and even catastrophically. Health changes too. There is a super-function in vertebrates called homeostasy which great American physiologist Walter B Cannon named wisdom of the body . Homeostasy helps those variables that are subject to change, like body core temperature, total number of red blood cells and so on, to remain within controlled thresholds which do not affect vital functions. The iris is part of homeostasy as an actor at least as much as it is, like every other body part, a subject to it. It happens that a pattern of iris stromal transparencies) may act as a signal and perform periodical inputs into a subsystem of homeostasy that uses environmental light. The iris is not perfectly opaque, especially at the level of the crypts of Fuchs, where the stroma is thinner and devoid of its anterior marginal layer. The lens and peripheral retina are perfectly structured so that they might support non-visual functions, like total reflection and ora serratal phototransduction. [edit] Is Iridology Acceptable, Safe and Useful ?[edit] Cons[edit] DataIridology is currently considered pseudoscience, by mainstream medicine. This is based on a little number of clinical studies - less than a dozen in the last fifty years, of which no more than four only manage to reject particular claims of some iridologists, never iridology per se and en bloc. [edit] DiscussionThis rejection does little if any good to the cause of advancing medical research, by creating a climate where rejecting research funds (even before research has a chance to find out the truth of the matter) becomes the norm. On the other side, research funding increasingly based on marketing, lobbying and big money for big science arguably restrains the quest for serendipitous, new, breakthrough research. We are not into a virtuous circle: By rejecting iridology before funding research into its claims (even for finding research-based reasons to reject them) iridology will never benefit from a balanced, hard-data based judgement! [edit] Pros[edit] DataMedicine is for ever evolving a magisterium. It is not merely an art, a particular science, some law, an applied domain of ethics etc., but a time-honored discipline that uses the right combination of everything it can for the patient's best interest. [edit] DiscussionThe fact that nobody understands how Chinese medicine, complete with acupuncture works in Western Medicine terms, did not prevent billions of people to benefit from it continuously and without side effects, for thousands of years. [edit] Judgements[edit] DataUSA Today, widely regarded as the most circulated periodical in the USA's printed media found out that more than 50% of FDA experts paid to critically assess a new therapy actually receive more money, in various forms, from the very multi-billion-dollar worth drug industry that also "offers" the new therapy. [edit] DiscussionsThere are at least four issues here:
Withholding information, or being arbiter and player symmultaneously was never an interesting performance, a service for most communities or good sport for that matter. Misleading the public by promoting the interests of big industry first, while public money is used for this is obviously a non-starter.
The argument that societal regulating bodies could only endorse what they currently are able to understand, simply does not hold: If anything, this should put regulators in a more humble and potentially less deadly position. Ironically, iridology, much unlike acupuncture, actually has a perfectly rational and scientific explanation, an anatomo-clinical fundament, and no side effects whatsoever, expecially if it is performed by certified medical doctors.
By turning only its current considerations into un-critical, non-research-based rejection, while society has a permanent obligation to yield normative acts in order to help and protect people, medical research becomes derrogative in its attitude against possibly helpful resources. Moreover, the combined cost of symmultaneous assessments of dozens of organ-systems, which iridology maintains it does, compares favorably with costly screening procedures, already proven to be useless, but maintained for economical, for-profit model-based reasons.
Iridology is completely devoid of side effects but not currently endorsed as an accepted medical practice. On the other side, governmental regulating bodies and multi-billion-dollar budgeted administrations are now proven to have endorsed drugs, treatments, and diagnostic procedures that later on hastily rejected. Ironically, such administrations are proven, as a well known fact, to have collusions rather than conflicts of interest with the drug industry. [edit] Other Disciplines involved in Studies of the Iris[edit] OphthalmologyBy virtue of some recent interdisciplinary knowledgeable bridges, many attempted to federate all kinds of study of the iris. Accordingly, iridology-like approaches were grouped there under the umbrella term trans-iridial studies. This was opposed to biometrical approaches. [edit] Biometry-based approachesThese attempts to use the iris as a bar code only address the cis-iridial knowledgeable field, complete with obvious disadvantages. [edit] RayidRayid Iris Interpretation is yet another form of iridology focusing on even more disputable views on constitutional signs and even "representational" psychology. [edit] Anatomy and HistologyIris Stromal Patterns are an interesting field by itself, becaue of their fascinating unicity. [edit] Conclusions[edit] The precautionary principleIn conclusion, more research is needed as a Precautionary principle before maintaing a rejection of iridology. Such advanced research is performed right now, as of 2004: [edit] State of the artSo far several clinical studies have shown that two or more practitioners examining the same patient rarely produced the same medical diagnosis. Iridologists maintained on their side that theirs was only a diagnosis of health, not a diagnosis of disease. This inversion in paradigms of iridial studies is still essential, they said. [edit] Balancing various, sometimes conflicting points of viewBalancing POVs and not withholding information under the false aegis of NPOV does a service to the cause of truth, and even to "neutrality". [edit] Consensus ConclusionIridology is safe, and acceptable. As for its usefulness, there still is a need to compare its net benefits in various terms, including:
[edit] Selective bibliographyDan Waniek: A model for a possible non-visual function of the iris, lens and peripheral retina. Med Hypoth 1987, vol 23, Issue 1, pp 309-312. (© 1987 Churchill Livingstone, the Longman Group © 2002 Dr Dan Waniek, MD and the Iris-Ward.com, Inc. for the ISSN 1297-9953). [edit] External links
[edit] On Primum non nocere[edit] Translation and VariantsClassical adage, based on the 2,500-years old Hippocratic Oath and maintaining that the first duty of all medical activity is: Never do any harm ! A more explicit variant is: Primum nil nocere [edit] InterpretationsBy such a strict yardstick, a narrow interpretation of primum non nocere would throw away all modern pharmacological "advances", since it is known that no synthetic drug is devoid of side effects. However, in some select cases, mostly life-threatening, synthetic medication may be essential to survival or quality of life. Under most current jurisdictions, a physician who is proven to cause harm by withholding vital medication could be legally liable. In such a case, Primum nil nocere is applied in reverse, for the patient's best interest. The physician must judge. Consciousness, experience, qualification, and moral standing are the best arbiters. Not even "natural" medication is devoid of side effects, and many non-synthetical drugs raise safety concerns. [edit] Quies custodiet ipsos custodes ?Given all these considerations, the currently increasing prevalence of side effects makes the hippocratic medical profession more necessary than ever. This is possibly more necessary than developement of administrations such as the FDA which are not known to be perfectly devoid of collusion with the interests of the drug industry. They could be expected to be! Afterall, being player and arbiter symmultaneously is not in the best tradition of good sport. There is a growing, serious and well documented concern that the number of patients dying each year in the USA only, as a direct result of nosocomial infections, and complications of therapeutical side effects, is greater than the figure for all of the following four major causes of mortality combined ! This well known fact could of course be judged in perspective, compared that is with the number of lives saved as a result of medical and surgical treatment. The ultimate hippocratic gauge is perhaps the societal issue, and there are of course alternatives to the current ethical background and mindset or our society will never step forward. Think different ! is good not only for marketing, but also for surviving. No civilization was the only, or the ultimate, and not even the current next best! [edit] On Cultures of Intolerance and Collateral Damages vs Cultures of TruthOn the other hand, not all side effects are necessarily obnoxious. A given drug has many effects, and we can conveniently, by petitio principii, choose to ignore some of them for the sake of others. This culture of tolerance applied only for "collateral damage" is arguably anything but hippocratic. Medicine is not only an art, and not yet science, but fundamentally a primum non nocere magisterium. Without genuine, original, compassionate, well trained hippocratic physicians, society will only perform pay-for-service acts, forgetting about the cure of disease ! The very editing process of this article, with immediate "editorial" reactions from fellow Wikipedians even before the author takes the chance to write it, is an immediate example of widespread dis-ease. [edit] Experimentum periculosumThe other hippocratic adage, better known under the Latin translation is the following, with its almost Ecclesiastical tone of vanitas vanitatum : Ars longa, vita brevis, tempus praeceps, judicium difficile, experimentum periculosum... Indeed, all experiment performed upon human beings, a melancholy and avoidable development so explicitely prohibited by international conventions, laws, tradition and common sense, is dangerous at best, anti-hippocratic at its worst, and always dangerous. [edit] Hippocrati de grege porcusAn interesting followup appeared. This little crank, a Hippocrati de grege porcus, continues his pretentious critic of some of his collegial redirectors, directors, scissor-happy editors and friends : ) here and here Sincerely Yours, [edit] On Talking OnHere is another nice mess you've got me into ! :) [edit] Free ? EncyclopediaThe two photographs on this page (and on the iridology:talk page) have been censored. Free speech here is dead. Welcome to the Encyclopaedia Orwelliana of the Brave New World : ) It's a corporate watchdog. Beware! By Jim's own example (you know where, item # 1), you can't say anywhere in Wiki that corporations are criminals, even if they are. (Click here for a list of top 100 corporate criminals pleading guilty and fined as much as USD 500,000,000) Understand ? Truth is irrelevant. Still not understood? Truth is lie, and at best, it's only a "point of view" - henceforward called a "POV". Capisci ? What matters here is a tyrant's supreme thinking, precious indication and unchallengeable statement. Which tyrant, pray ? This is a superior creature, above mere authors - and all mortals for that matter. This is called "the Wiki editor" - usually not an author, very badly informed, not capable of judging the weight of evidence, but extremely trigger happy, hostile expert in bad manners. I decided to suspend all new articles to Wiki as a result. It's a waste of time. Sadly, I learn nothing new here. Editors who are not authors themselves, will never learn from me either, because their own ignorance is only surpassed by their own arrogance. They will only revert to the wrong version, cut without reading, and redirect - without knowing where. They will do this endlessly, until Wiki becomes irrelevant. Already I see the trend of deletion, redirection, and mediocrity surpassed only by the editor-to-author growing ratio. Wiki will become a kleptocracy and a kakocracy, not an ad-hoc-cracy and a meritocracy. Democracy is drowned in piratocracy. Long live the Patriot Act and the suspension of freedom for an obscure reason . However, I will remain here until I'm censored completely. I will fight on and edit mercilessly all disinformation, bad taste and lies. They kicked me out for vandalism, and they did not kick out the vandals - who were rewarded for their contribution . George Orwell must turn on his side in his tomb. Looks like known history: zealots and sicarii creating objective trends by adjusting the "voting" - to - "convincing" ratio thresholds : ) Sincerely, irismeister 14:26, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC) (Either you wag the dog or you don't know the actual meaning of really dirty talk...:>) Image censored, and my page vandalized, courtesy to the "free" encyclopedia : )! Image sadly censored from Wiki although it only showed a little dog truly, a bit wagged... [edit] On Butchering AM in WikipediaAs of today, the Alternative Medicine has also been butchered. Frozen, complete with "protection" on its talk page. By whom? Well, by thought police editors who can barely articulate an opinion in basic English (see list on those page history logs, while you can :).
I can also quote the case study of a fellow editor, Mr Natural Health, whose main drawback is his not accepting his own character assasination. Adding her trademark spicy injury over the insult of censorship, distinguished junior editor (aka dyslexic promoter of idiolectic basic English) Theresa declared on that page:
Stay tuned ! Continue to write, document, edit quality information ! After your contribution is cut, the relevant pages will be frozen, your talk prohibited and the moment you'll try adding one more word anywhere, thought police officers will jump in to produce "NPOV-as-the-guru-has-spoken" editing conflicts. Then you're character assasinated. The next step is probably reporting you in the programmming department, for laser-guided-democracy-enhancers (LGDE), you know, those tools manufactured by people failing to make their point otherwise :) Welcome to Orwellland ! Morituri te salutant ! [edit] On Inherent Biases[edit] Declaration of bias towards the benevolent dictatorJim, who so so unceremoniously was involved - to say nothing about personally - in banning me for some continuous, non-discreet and indeed indiscreet multiples of 24 hours, talked to my lawyer who contacted him directly. I must declare, in bona fide that my personal esteem for our benevolent dictator increased as a first consequence. Jim honored the spirit of truth (as most benevolent dictators would do from time to time, he he :). No longer not recommended ! Therefore, my declaration of bias follows here:
[edit] On Hope[edit] "The only hope for democracy in a dictatorship is the unreasonable man..."
[edit] On GeniiJoseph Priestley, in The Skeptical Chemist demonstrated that he would have never discovered oxygen using his trade-mark skepticism. Serendipity which is the factor behind 90% of really important discoveries (DNA structure by Watson and Crick, the transistor, nuclear fission - to refer only to the 20th century) does not impede Skepticism, while the reverse is true. Thomas Kuhn maintained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that a generation of academic cranks must disappear, literally dying of old age before a new idea has a chance to enter into carefully closed debates for extra-academical "reasons". Nikola Tesla died in poverty and his books were burned by the USA Government only to be hailed today with anything but skepticism. Karl Popper demonstrated that falsificability is the main logical property of a scientific conjecture. David Horrobin, author of in excess of 1,000 scientific articles in pharmacology demonstrated that select committees of peer reviewers in scientific journals are in fact cabals of buddies and censors on a global scale (that was even before the Wiki concept emerged.) The Nobel-Prize winner Kary Mullis (for PCR - and serendipitously, not skeptically) blew the whistle on the peer review industry for scientific publications and has been smeared and marginalized. Nature (world's leading scientific publication - my note) so ignominously, and famously, had to retract articles although they were approved several times in a row by leading peer reviewers. As if they were some Java compilers, ome of them were published just in time before the famous Kyoto decisions. David Baltimore, another Nobel Prize Winner admitted fraud and disgrace. Banting and Best who admitted intellectual theft and nevertheless kept their Nobel Prize, are still known as the alleged discoverers of insulin. In the mean time the true discoverer, Nicolae Paulescu, is even today subject of smear and libel for obscure, alleged anti-semitic, and clearly, blatantly anti-scientific "reasons". I wonder if you were aware of all these, were it not for your kind visit to my user page :-) [edit] Who says who is a genius ?
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. I would very much like to carry on this conversation with more logical developments, data and interpretations thereof in more appropriate places. The talk pages of those respective articles, both in Romanian and in English, your own talk page, or my talk page are obvious candidates - please choose at your leisure. Continuing it here pleases me too but it looks on my personal page like an ad hominem. Besides it increases the length of this page and puts valuable stuff in the archives, where they are less read. Moreover, inviting me away from Wiki is yet another gentle attempt to silence my (granted) inconvenient views. My "case studies" have become the litmus test for free speech in Wiki, so I have no moral right to let myself intimidated or invited elsewhere. As long as the real issues are not allowed to enter debate, what's a debate ? Sincerely - irismeister 12:10, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC) Happy editing :-)
[edit] On Substantiations of Desubstantion[edit] Editorial. Journal of Irreproducible Results :-)[edit] Being offered the IgNobel prize, I kindly declined, not sure of the irreproducibility of my results
Don't worry - we have liberties, in all degrees, if we agree to extend the field of POVs rather than restrict it. In our negotiations, we only talk about what should go where, when, and why. OK. Now I think you still take me as some quack or lunatic so busy self-enhancing his POV as not to listen to you. WRONG! If YOU and the whole bunch of other contributors are ready to rather not have me around - than to have me, so that they might listen to the alleged extreme of my discourse - then YOU are in for petitio principi - aka putting under carpet whatever you don't care to consider as garbage. Understand ? Do YOU UNDERSTAND ? Or you want me to become a clone of parrot-monkey-ophthalmologist to satisfy you into playing Wiki with you as you magnanimously show me - or else... :-) Look, Ed - I like you so allow me to put it in a conclusion as yet another joke: Three idiotic cops once disputed between themselves on the crime scene, preparing evidence.
That wasn't quite the response I was looking for; in fact, it was mostly incoherent babble. Please help us, or go away. --Uncle Ed 17:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) [edit] On Intellectual Fraud[edit] Intellectual Fraud from Uncle Ed and Accusers[edit] No, Uncle, babbling is to look away from issues and towards their transfer to personsNice - so you want me to say what YOU would like to talk with my mouth. Why bother to give me reasons - YOU DON'T FOLLOW - YOU DON'T ADDRESS MY OPINION AS ISSUES so why BOTHER TO DRESS IT UP ? - You don't like me, you ban me. This is a simple thinking called FASCISM, long dismissed into the dustbin of history. Who needs fools, handicapped, foreign speakers, anyway - only kings allowed jesters to speak truth and the American Republic has better things to do. Ban me, Uncle Ed, wipe that tear in your eyes while you say bye to free speech, and do what you HAVE to do! Remember ? I predicted that three days ago - when you didn't care to spot the difference between theory and opinion on the reflexology talk page - while I agreed with you in theory my opinion was that you'll ban me anyway. Here we are. My POV is now a matter of fact and a mainstream NPOV policy :-) So why talk ? Do what you have to do, and stand ovation while we all enjoy the liberty of the New American Century. But don't forget:
How's my 24,000 page edits and 24 major articles in 120 days for a joke? A 200 page edits per day help methinks :-)
Why ? You don't like me ? You are hopelessly off-topic. FYI: In time POVs shift and drift. Sometimes as much as 180° per millennium. Avicenna thought whatever was mainstream in his time - that we see through radar-like light, produced and emitted by the eyes (LPEE). Now we think we see through receptors, via phototransduction (STRP). The marginal, indeed extreme view, that we see via low-energy emitted photons (LEEP) is a blatant POV today, but was NPOV and mainstream for Avicenna. Had Avicenna neglect to mention the STRP view - an extreme POV for his time, no vision science advance would have arguably been made possible. We, and only we Americans think there is nothing else under the sky and that the sun turns around us. Happy editing :-) - irismeister 18:01, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Superfluous I am not, but I admit I type fast (not faster than I think, though :) I also accept - and entirely agree with you - that we had a false conflict scene, developed on misunderstandings and failure to share and to keep the rythm (Incidentally I confess I also wanted to put stuff here before my next ban which we all know will not take long :O). Anyway, in any event, slow I will, Sir, I will - it's a promise :O) Also thank you for letting me remember not to keep the emergency room habits and skills :-) Sincere apologies, and thank you again! For it's always refreshing to have outside observers to cool us all down as per more sanity. Thank you dearly for your kind final words - but I'm afraid my patients are... reaaaalllly patient, much to their honor and sadly, to my shame. Sincerely, - irismeister 19:20, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC) Please add any information you wish to present to the Wikipedia arbitrators regarding any alleged libel against you, including your legal theory of libel, to Wikipedia:Matter of Irismeister evidence. Fred Bauder 19:46, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC) My pleasure,Fred Bauder
[edit] On Libelling Editors in Wikipedia[edit] DefinitionThe definition of libel is simple, and comes from the Wiki trusted, NPOV source:
[edit] On Censorship in Wikipedia[edit] Moving to more appropriate page ???Review of admin actions moved FROM the Requests for review of admin actions page ? Perhaps some admins simply do not like their actions reviewed and findings of fact on display. Well, "removing" anything, from inconvenient passages, to opponents to whole peoples, or "deleting" them, seems to enhance the relevance of the only remaining standpoint. Sadly, it only shows the basic irrelevance and moral tortuosity of censorship. We've seen that before. Before the First Amendment :O) - Happy editing - irismeister 08:56, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) [edit] Tannin, pleaseYou've just made a mess out of your "move" on my page. I do not speak of the insult of censorship over the injury of misdirection. I talk html-wise :O) You just put everything in black in your rush to hide inconvenient stuff. I'm not dead yet. Don't worry - they have these laser-guided free speech enhancers somewhere buzzing :O) - irismeister 09:12, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC) [edit] User:Theresa knott, User:Fabiform, Uncle Ed, Jwrosenzweig, and TextureThese sysops/admins have demonstrated in the last five months a pattern of hostile behavior towards editors of medical articles which needs to be reviewed. Here are: [edit] Findings of fact
I admit I said that he either needed to admit he didn't mean his 2nd statement, or else admit that he had been a liar in making his original statement. My patience was wearing thin, I admit. You may judge whether I have acted wrongly. [3] I will refrain from speaking to him in the future, because I can't control my anger when he is around. [4] (to be continued) You have eroded all the good will left in my body. Any more crap out of you, and I will "take steps". Better listen up good, because I'm one the oldest "old hands" around here and I know how to work the system. Don't get me riled up against you, or I will force you out!! (A word to the wise is sufficient.) (here on this very page, below!) Hmm, Well, well, well ! If a senior sysop/admin cannot control his anger in writing, on the very page reserved for review of admin actions, what better proof we need ? Am I the only one to think that Wikipedia is a place where people are banned on the basis of insults, libel and tyrannic movements of bile and phlegm, not of reason and higher neural functions ? - irismeister 18:43, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
An interesting pattern arises: Editors are insulted, submitted to the already admitted tort of written distortion of truth, misrepresentation of facts and diabolization of their character, then banned as if the labels were the facts!
When pages are edited by their original author, the page is "instantly" blocked (with surrogates of motivations and laughable "vanity" labels). Labels are then used as quick-fix warrants of NPOV reinforcing policies (without judgement of all POVs on which POV is based). When point-by-point, careful explanations are introduced in favor of good information, they are ignored and the POV of ignorant editors are promoted as NPOV. This is by definition the nature of POV editing. [edit] Quod erat demonstrandumAs long as we'll try to cut POVs and diabolize them as "vanity", instead of judging them and letting them compete by their own merit, we'll be paragons of censorship- and anything but NPOV editors. The writing of such "labeled articles" shows a caricature of democracy and sheer disrespect for truth, rights and persons as a consequence. Talk pages become a place where PhDs are insulted and lab technicians allowed to have final words because of a system of off-Wiki cabals and buddyware. Perhaps in Wiki some admins can only see their edits and their own humors and mindset embedded in articles. Abuse of position becomes the norm where there is no quies custodiet ipsos custodes guardian of sanity. In those tyrannic, hate-fed mindsets only "vanity" and "arbitration" seem to exist - rational discussion is beyond them if they define who is and who isn't allowed to speak. To sum up, this feature proves how a great idea decays in a place of inequality, irrational behavior, erratic thinking, buddyware and lack of respect for competence. When we put ourselves at the mercy of those who think themselves as above the rest, the "whom we like and whom we dislike" doctrine becomes the norm. By definition, this is the essence of tyranny. Lack of freedom of speech, disinformation and bias is a poison which is allowed to destroy truth, and with it, freedom. For only truth will make us free. What happens in the news at large, with rapes of consciousness and killing of good will could not leave Wiki virgin. The Zeitgeist has spoken. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[edit] Proposals[edit] OneThese admin/sysops are to be kindly invited to revise their attitude towards more collegiality and to desist from aggressivity. They might be invited to put more considerate excuses in writing, with a commitment to refrain from insults and pretentions of competence in areas of relative weekness in their own knowledge. They must drop haughtiness, like filling all their contributions with errors of fact, judgement and grammar in an expectation that someone else will clean the articles for them. Finally, they might be required to abstain from deleting and even editing articles beyond their own area of competence. [edit] TwoI recommend to the hostile editors above to start by reinforcing an excellent, if recent Wiki guideline before making auctorial, magisterial and blah-blah recommendations. Again, a good rule of thumb for admin is to refrain from editing articles where the only positive contribution of the "author" was to police and ban the outmost, outstanding and outspoken collaborators. Common sense and decency recommends not to recommend whan you are not qualified to understand, let alone recommend. [edit] ThreeOn a more theoretical scale, if admin are really into NPOV editing they should not delete information in POVs, or only going along with POVs. All POVs MUST be freely expressed, only stated as such. If we delete them en bloc without understanding them, just because we believe we are competent only because we are admins, then off goes the information as well. ONLY with all POVs clearly explained in the talk pages can REAL NPOVs exist. Nobody is born a NPOV editor. NPOV is only a measure of central tendency (mean, mode, median) of ALL POVs. Without POVs there is no NPOV. All NPOVs are first only a POV. See details here. Sincerely, irismeister 21:39, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Given all these, and developments to come, we could expect more NPOV and accept less POV from a young unexperienced sysop, so perhaps his name should make it into the headline as a consequence of his uninvited advocacy here. - irismeister 18:10, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
Iris, shut up and get back to work! You are wasting everyone's time. Either help us to write accurate NPOV articles, or leave. I don't give a rat's ass about whether natural health or iridology or zone manipulation are true or not. Just make your case for them, and leave it for the reader to decide. People have bent over backwards to accomodate you, mostly out of a pure concern for fairness and justice. You have eroded all the good will left in my body. Any more crap out of you, and I will "take steps". Better listen up good, because I'm one the oldest "old hands" around here and I know how to work the system. Don't get me riled up against you, or I will force you out!! (A word to the wise is sufficient.) --Uncle Ed 14:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) [edit] On Diversion in Wikipedia
[edit] the politics of age and civility
thoughtfully? demonstrated Touché :O) - irismeister 21:21, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC) If the above are guilty then so am I. I have not been involved but I support their actions and would have acted in a similar manner to uphold the content of Wikipedia. - Texture 20:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] On Mice and Men[edit] On Documented Choice to Terminate Quality Articles in WikipediaBut of course it's people, not fancy imagination above Horatio's philosophy. Wiki IS people. And people should talk to each other even after they shouted. I humbly pack my stuff, having made my point, and leave WIKI in peace of mind. And on and on I go :O) So long, good friends (and less good friends - I thank you ALL!) After I go (or I'm banned - it's really the same) let there remain a point I made as an epitaph: I believe this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... even in 2004 AD - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 22:10, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC) [edit] On Deletion of Evidence and Serial BansIn fact, I enjoyed an abuse of serial bans of 3 * 24 hours on ridiculous "explanations". The first to block was JWR, on "personal attack" (his usual silencing method). Then if was TK "thinking" I was breaking something - it was only silence, after 36 hrs - but she is too busy to care. Last was Pakaran, whatever (yawn). OK, so let's come back to business. Why on Earth did you move, then delete the evidence for increasing AM practice in an increasing number of countries ? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY ? Please answer quickly because I don't have a guarantee on my time considering the future arbitrations/bans/comments - you know, the ABC of cooperative editing. Now let me point to a thing. Should you continue to delete evidence without reading it, I'm going to be let me see? Not less courteous to you. But looke what! Dan means "he made justice in Hebrew". Look into Genesis, etc. If I can't find it in Wiki I'll certainly find it offWiki - but justice (which is never a threat) Will be Dan - or I'm not named Dan :O) irismeister 22:15, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Deletions - well, you didn't. Not here, at least. You just banned me abusively and in a rush, without looking at what you do. WRONG! You quit the discussion here without answering WRONG! Since your self-esteem does not allow you to read my answers to the questions you ask, I wonder why do I bother? Why do I lose any more time with you, TK, given your brutish, obstructionist, abusive incompetence in medical things? WRONG for me :O) How sad! This was an opportunity for you to show on this very page that you do more than deletions. Please react to the destruction of the evidence you asked for, or let's go into an arbitration if not. Now we know how to do it :O) And BTW - about your blocks - I don't care much! I filed a formal complaint for your abuse of adminship and DELETION of fake reasons to ban me on the ban log (trusted third parties took all the necessary snapshots :O) You were wrong, and you panicked! If justice is not done on site now, it will be done off wiki, the very moment you ban me. Just try it - one more of your abuses - just as a test. And your use of word threat alongside legal is not only an oxymoron but also a bit silly. Who really thinks justice is a threat? Only those who have something to hide or fear. Considering your hiding in London when I was there to meet you in person, and your long list of abuses, complete with a formal request from AC to refrain from insults and libel, perhaps you panick. Don't. I'm not nasty. But justice is essential, TK. Do something constructively, or stop editing here AM or my medical articles. Be honest to you, and honest to the community! You are here in Wiki for better things than making me lose time :O) La balle est dans ton camp - It's up to you now. Ban me now, and we'll end losing time with each other, both of us! But this time be sure of what you do. There is a limit of my tolerance! And if you do want to change your dull repetitive and spurious invocations of "threat" and "personal attack" you may. They will turn into explanations you'll have to produce in person in a British Court of Law to my personal questions. As for these, you'll see they are neither dull, nor threatening, let alone personal. What a wonderful opportunity for you to see evidence, how to deal with it in neat ordered files, how you can use reason, and how you pass from data to interpretatio, conclusion and conjectures :O) At that time, you'll not be able to look away from evidence any more, neither towards Jim, nor in the general direction of more paint on tits. You bet you won't have the opportunity for that extra tear on Jim's broad shoulder, because this time it's not libel chill but your personal responsibility ONLY. Act as a grown up, and for once, think deeply, TK. This I won't repeat, and is your last chance. Clearly, you can't talk reason, understand arguments or make progress in "collaborative" editing with this editor who takes the opportunity to wish you well in any event :O) irismeister 00:55, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) Pakaran, please see, check and recheck the melancholy unwikiness of mingling your POVs inside your fellow editor's user page, for instance in [7], and [8]. OK, I'll say nothing about banning me in the same breath. I know it's only a reflex movement and probably instantly boiling bile after concentration over the critical point. But I doubt it to be a symptom of denervation-hypersensitivity rebound phenomena all over :O)
|
