http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template...C3%B6m_diagrams

I recognize that trying to insinuate pictures of oneself into as many articles as possible is reminiscent of certain forms of Shankbonery, but these diagrams are benign and vaguely educational.

Also, I can't help but noticing that Mr. Häggström is remarkably well proportioned for a man who "eats chocolate every day".

Well, he's probably 30 years old-- an age at which most people can eat anything every day and still look great. Let's see him at 45 or 55 doing that.

unless he is essjaying, he is apparently a medical student.

And a fine specimen of one, too.

Looking at his stuff I was reminded of a recent Bodyworlds exhibit I saw. I had a idea of a sort of Return of the Living Dead meets Night at the Museum sort of flick that does Bodyworlds. Premise: at night all these taxidermied people climb down from their perches and come alive. But they're not zombies and have no taste for brains. They're just a little confused. "Hey, last I remember I was a prisoner in China. They said they were going to shoot me in back of the head. Say-- have you seen my liver...?"

It depends how much chocolate doesnt it. I eat a very small amount just a tast most days and Im not exactly like obesitys picture.

If this were a competition, User:XKV8R (T-C-L-K-R-D) would be in the running.

He has 2200 edits (over 1200 apparently deleted) with 287 of those to his user page.

His story about the sockpuppeting son of a scholar who has a less than mainstream opinion on the origin of the Dead Sea scrolls makes interesting reading though.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292421333

The Häggström thing has now begun inflitrating basic chemistry articles with self-images, starting with adding a helpful carbon cycle one to element carbon, featuring himself. I want to know if we can add him to cat:

Invasive plant species like Kudzu.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't be added to the more generalized Invasive species category, but I wouldn't want to categorize him as a plant, or plant-like. That would be unfair - plants don't produce as much waste!

Still, this is a rather interesting conundrum. Technically, there's no reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to do something like this - it's really the fact that Wikipedia is practically the only publication (or whatever you want to call it) in the world where you can do it with this level of impact that makes it disturbing. Then again, WP has been lacking in low-level medical illustrations, and there are a fair number of WP'ers who fuss about things like "model's consent" and "rights to one's personal likeness" - and for good reason, too, because there's been plenty of abuse related to those things in the past. If the easiest way around that is to use your own likeness, well then... this sort of thing is probably inevitable, really.

I looked through his contribs a bit, and to be honest, I'm not seeing the usual hallmarks of pathological narcissism. There's some presumption of acceptance for his own expertise, but that might actually be justified, and there's little of the usual pre-emptive blaming, trumpeting of one's favors-to-humanity (as such), and self-righteous indignation over objections to his own assertions. Then again, he claims to have authored "numerous books," including one entitled The Meaningation of Life, except that these aren't books you can actually buy in stores (online or off), apparently. Maybe someday...

So... IMO this is more likely a relatively-innocent case of simple egotism, and possibly opportunism to some degree, rather than narcissism - at least as I understand the distinction. (Note that I'm not a professional psychologist, I just play one on WR.)

One of his books at least does seem to be genuine. "Instant book" does sound suspiciously like a print-on-demand vanity press, but what I know about the Swedish book industry could be written on a postage stamp.

(add) Just call me Brandt Mk 2. Someone who has founded their own school of philosophy and written a 573kb document about it probably does qualify for the "narcissism" title.

C'mon Dud(ess)es, anyone who groks the One True Religion Of Wikipedism (OTROW)™ knows that individual egotism and individual narcissism are but the first faltering steps on the path to the supreme, transcendentally e-lightened and ultimately e-volved state of collective narcissism — the Self-Love Of The Hive (SLOTH).

Why?

Well, the proof is easy enough to see — individual egotism and individual narcissism, no matter how blessed and glorious these intermediot phases of grace may be, both bear the cloven hoof and the fatal flaw of personal responsibility.



Brother Jon

Oh dear, I didn't see that... I'm afraid that is rather damning, isn't it?

What would be really ironic would be if this incident caused someone to actually read The Meaningation of Life, and in so doing decide to become a committed "Haggstromist." For all we know, this could be quite the dangerous philosophy indeed, involving pink jumpsuits, oily spaghetti, and giant-ant colonies in outer space.

If Moulton and Jon Awbrey raised a child together, I imagine it would grow up sounding like this.

I skimmed Haggstrom's "document".

Admittedly I'm not a philosophy student, but this looks like utter tripe to me.
Something an Objectivist might write while on psychedelic drugs.

Oh dear... it gets even worse than that!

Wikipedia's article on Intrinsic value (ethics) was largely written by none other than User:Mikael Häggström (T-C-L-K-R-D) , including references to "aliquidism," a word whose quasi-philosophical meaning he might very well have invented all by himself, based on the kinds of Google results I'm seeing. The section on Unspecified aliquidism appears to have been taken almost verbatim from his own work.

How much you wanna bet that if we read through this PDF book of his, and cross-reference it to edits by that particular user account, we find yet more instances of this sort of thing...?

I'm tellin' ya, you can't make this stuff up, folks!

The problem with aliquidism is that one can't tell if it refers to really solid work or just a lot of hot air.

The photo on his user page barely looks like the same person.

As best I can tell, "aliquidism" is derived from the Latin word "aliquid," which literally means "something." So in essence, he's saying his elaborate personal philosophy is "positive intrinsic something-or-other."

Is this like a big joke, or what? How much of this stuff is there, anyway? I vaguely recall Peter Damian saying WP's Philosophy articles in general were terrible, but I didn't think it was quite like that.

If it is a big joke, I have to admit, it's not bad - pretty funny, even! Now I'm kinda wishing I'd thought of it...

I think it means ¬Ø-ism …

Or it could mean a-liquid-ism —

Oh, that this too, too liquid flesh should solidify!

Good thing there's a pill for that …

Ja Ja

So it fits well with wikipeida.

If there is, Odo never found it...

And I too have oft wondered if Hamlet was talking about Wikipedia:

Which naturally raises questions about the relationship of The {{Co-}}Founders to Les ¢ompagnons.

Jon

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nak...nt_anterior.png

Well, you knew that was com- I mean, uh, gonna happen.

He could have at least used Photoshop to darken the tan lines...

Is it likely that there is a non-narcissistic reason to shave all hair, other than eyebrows, lashes, and head hair, from your body - other than a medical one that is not apparent from the image?

Nope, this is one obsessed pool viewer.

Maybe he was planning to do some amateur porn videos?

Let's just hope he doesn't upload those to Wikipedia Commons too...