Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 19 December 2007

User:John Gohde/archive

This user is a participant in WikiProject Alternative medicine.

CAM Portal

Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine

We are looking for editors interested in participating in our project.

Alternative Medicine Terms and concepts Philosophy of ... Branches of ... Famous People in ... History of ... Index of topics

Richmond, Virginia, USA, Planet Earth, The Sun,
Milky Way galaxy

Welcome to my talk page. If you would like me to reply to anything, I am set up to receive private email.

Being that my name is all over the place in Google, if you are unable to contact me YOU clearly are not trying very hard .

However, my time is very limited. And, I will NOT engage in endless meaningless chatter.

WikiProject Alternative Medicine

You have listed yourself as a participant of this project. The project has had a minimum of activity. Hopefully this can be changed. I am posting this notice on the user talk pages of those participants that are still active Wikipedians. If you are still interested in getting the project into gear, make yourself heard on the project talk page! Cheers! __meco 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just freshen up the WikiProject project page. Since the talk page is active, the project is likewise active. I see no need to maintain a list of active versus non-active participants. That will only turnoff new prospects, IMHO. Once a participant, always a participant in intent if nothing else. Want to be active? Then less talk and more edtiting of articles, and forget the talk pages. -- John Gohde 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help out. Please let me know how. -- Levine2112 20:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See, our open task list on our project page. -- John Gohde 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for our new Portal

		The Template Barnstar
		To John Gohde, in recognition of his hard work in starting the brand new Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal. Thank you so much! -- Levine2112 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith /C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fyslee

With regards to Fyslee's personal attacks on you on the MfD page, I want you know how ironic I found his statement considering he had just posted these comments at an otherwise civil discussion at Talk:Quackwatch. He essentially claims that believers of alternative medicines must have a defective brain and then he comes down on you for having an "extreme violation-of-NPOV agenda and reveals he does not respect or intend to follow NPOV"? -- Levine2112 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee is currently documenting just how defective his brain is. Only low-lifes would join a WikiProject for the express purpose of tearing it down. -- 67.62.69.162 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All is not lost. I have just updated my reply. The facts are that anybody can add all the quotes they want to. You can help by notifying people who are in general favorable about our Wikiproject. Like I said, if anybody don't like the present mix of quotes, they are free to add their own. This is Misplaced Pages after all. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, making the quotes a mixed bag is generally a good idea. I'm sure you know that there are some editors who will resort to some pretty base tactics to smear anything related to alternative medicine (and this is just another example of it). As much as I respect that mainstream medicine is just that - mainstream - I think it is disingenuous of some editors to try and silence the voice of alternative medicine on Misplaced Pages. Clearly there is room for both. I think that a lot of the skeptical Wikipedians work well within the Alt Med article world. The difficulty comes from the pseudoskeptics (or as I call them: "the true disbelievers") who claim to be skeptics but lack the defining trait of a skeptic - an open mind. But onto a totally separate editor... Do you think it is odd that Fyslee - who is a member of the CAM project - is also against this project's existence? -- Levine2112 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd but quite the norm in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps, we should participate in the Skeptic's Wikiproject? -- John Gohde (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do, but I am not in favor of deleting it. -- Levine2112 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The best thing we can do is not lose our cool. I have another battle going on on Talk:Main page under Portals on the main page. The discussion could use another voice. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issue is. Let me re-read it and see if I can contribute tomorrow. -- Levine2112 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee

Fyslee said: "I am changing my vote here in keeping with a seeming opening of the project for participation from skeptics, as indicated by John Gohde's invitation for other quotes. I'll add some. -- Fyslee / talk 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)"

However the change is not recorded as far as I can see. --Anthon01 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will ask Fyslee to vote one way or the other. -- John Gohde 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to his stated intentions, he never did? Anthon01 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Format for Herbs

Does a format for the Herbal pages exist. If not, do you think it would be a good idea? --Anthon01 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by format? -- John Gohde 16:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the classification of herbs then check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Herbs and Spices. -- John Gohde 18:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant a format for talking about medicinal herbs. In other words a format that lays out sections that would be common to all articles on herbs. For example "History (Past & Modern), Traditional Uses, Claims, Science, Sources, (where it's grown) Wildcrafted vs. farmed etc ... --Anthon01 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss that with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Plants or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Herbs and Spices. I know absolutely nothing about medicinal herbs. Personally, I see no reason to use them when food, exercise, and nutritional supplements work just fine in most cases. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Medicinal Herbs are helpful when those things are not enough. There are situations where a person might use a drug, that an herb would do as well or better with less side -effects. I assume that herbs would also be part of the alternative medicine portal. Anthon01 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, add a herb related article to the Selected Article box. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Template title

Hi there, I was unsure what the title of the new "Biologically-based therapy" template means, and what the criteria you used to classify these therapies were. Please comment on the template talk page. Tim Vickers 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I you are not sure, then why in the world did you edit it? Just curious. -- John Gohde 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and read the source. The new title is more specific and describes the contents of the template in an unambiguous manner, hopefully you will agree that this is an improvement. Tim Vickers 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal Quotes

"If one has an issue with the supposed bias of this portal, nominating the whole of it would be sensible." Does this come next? --Anthon01 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that the first step is to communicate what in the world you are talking about. I do not happen to have ESP. Perhaps, if you were to try editing? -- John Gohde 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So sorry. This is from the top of the Portal Quotes summary. "If one has an issue with the supposed bias of this portal, nominating the whole of it would be sensible." I was wondering if this would come next, that is a MFD of the Portal. I am learning about the politics of this place and wonder how these situations usually proceed. --Anthon01 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT have a clue as to what you are talking about. And, I have better things to do with my time than try to communicate with some body who refuses to communicate, for whatever reason. -- John Gohde 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to waste you time. --Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A third part explained to me what you were trying to say.

I never read Xoloz's comment, nor would most editors. This entire MfD will soon be completely forgotten. It is totally besides the point what Xoloz wrote. Opinions are a dime a dozen, including Xoloz's. The only thing that counts is that the move to delete was defeated.

Anybody can do a MfD on any article/list/category/portal, or whatever, at any time. Being constantly attacked by the so-called skeptics is just part of the alternative medicine territory. -- John Gohde (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

1) You no longer seem "set up to receive emails."

2) I have no doubt that orthomolecular medicine is a "biologically based" alternative medical treatment. And yet I think it confuses more than it clarifies when it is classified in the same group as such esoteric therapies like urine therapy.

Bear in mind that the disputes surrounding these 2 therapies are completely different. Proponents of orthomolecular medicine, many scientists and physicians among them, allege that their discipline is the result of meticulous research in laboratories, that could be proved with double blind placebo-controlled studies, but that these generally have yet to (correctly) be done, or that the studies which are claimed to disprove its validity are erroneous in design or conclusions. Of course, the best case solution would be to replicate these studies, once and for all. Urine therapy, on the other hand, is endorsed by but a handful of eccentrics, and to the best of my knowledge, has no lab results to support it.

While the classification as such is correct, I believe it puts orthomolecular medicine into a very misleading light by inference. Would you consider removing your classification?--Alterrabe (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! The list should be as small as possible, with only our best articles listed. -- John Gohde 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood electrification article up on AFD

Alternative medicine is under attack again. The AFD Blood electrification article links to the AFD discussion page. Please weigh-in with your thoughts. Gang members of the Pub-med only references medical and establishment science community visit and edit the article deleting lots of it without discussion on the talk page, then nominate the article for deletion because it gets so thin on content and WP:RS references. Deletionists maintain the argument that patents on file are not WP:RS for other than the fact that the patents were awarded without regard to the evidence in the filed patents that the claims are true, and have been accepted by the patent examiners. Oldspammer (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck article

Dr. Bob Beck (1925-2002) was a famous alternative medicine guru who advocated electro-medicine.

I started a wiki article about him in May-June 2007 or so, and have needed help with it to make it acceptable.

The article was AFD within a month or less, and it was decided to place the article into my user-space, so I am still trying to improve it over time.

MastCell, one of the Medicine Wiki group, has just contacted me stating his / her intent to have the article reconsidered for, and promptly deleted without me having it in a ready to go state.

I would like you or anyone that you could recommend help me get the article in shape for such a deletion review, or your honest thoughts about whether or not it is worth the effort given the harsh climate around here for alternative medicine given its mistreatment in mainstream media, and the scientific / medical journals. Oldspammer (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It contains way, way, way too much material. You are not writing a book, but one article. It should be about the historical person only. Remove all health claims and stuff about the Beck Protocol (which could go into a separate article). You need to decide what are the most important events in his life and concentrate on them. The article contains too much material.

One way to organize this article is to put a section header on every couple of paragraphs. This will create a table of contents outline of the article. This will make it easier to cut out major sections of the article. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons that the article was AFD at the time was that it lacked notability. If some of the med info in it were taken out, then wouldn't he become even less notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldspammer (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If I was to spit out the alt med protocol info into another article, how would you suggest I avoid lots of it being deleted / attacked / or AFD?

In the scientist box he is said to be a physicist--right away the physicists scientists come in and say that he was never a notable physicist--for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldspammer (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Oldspammer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

You and members of alt-med are invited to comment. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Yes, I do. First of all, I have not edited on Misplaced Pages in 24 hours because I had better things to do. Now, time has freed up and I am told that I cannot edit. This is redicuoluous. Meanwhile the other party, which is just as guilty as me, if not more so, is allowed to edit. -- John Gohde (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Instances of Personal Attacks by

Fyslee

User:Fyslee has gone out of his way to harass me; as well as make personal attacks against me. Fyslee edit history

1. 01:43, 18 December 2007
2. 01:42, 18 December 2007
3. 22:17, 16 December 2007
4. 15:44, 16 December 2007
5. 10:11, 12 December 2007
6. 01:48, 12 December 2007
7. 19:46, 29 November 2007

Thank you for nicely documenting my responses to a few of your personal attacks. You have been attacking me and many other editors for some time now. Enough is enough. This block needs to be made into an indef ban. -- Fyslee / talk 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee has been banned from editing this article

Fyslee banned from editing alternative medicine: "Fyslee is banned from editing Barrett v. Rosenthal, all articles which relate to Quackwatch and similar activities, and all articles which relate to alternative medicine. He may comment and make suggestions on talk pages."

In my humble opinion, complementary and alternative medicine is positively related to alternative medicine. Hence, Fyslee must cease and desist from editing this article immediately. -- John Gohde (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. I was not banned from editing any articles. Here are the proposed remedies:

5 Proposed remedies

5.1 Ilena banned (passed)

5.2 Ilena banned from editing alternative medicine (passed)

5.3 Fyslee banned from editing alternative medicine (not passed)

5.4 Fyslee is cautioned (passed)

If one examines the votes, only 1, 2, and 4 passed. My nemesis was both banned from editing alternative medicine and from Misplaced Pages altogether. I was cautioned to continue doing what I had been doing: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV." I was also reminded to be careful when in a situation where a COI might be a problem. That hasn't been a problem yet.

On the contrary, John Gohde (Mr-Natural-Health) has previously been brought to arbitration by Jimbo Wales himself, and was then banned from editing and the reasons for banning him apply very much right now. He is repeating the same behavior:

Judgement of the committee

Findings of fact:

we find that Mr-Natural-Health has behaved inappropriately on a consistent and excessive basis

we find that Mr-Natural-Health has made personal attacks in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy

we find that Mr-Natural-Health has misused edit summaries in an effort to intimidate other editors

Remedy:

therefore, Mr-Natural-Health’s privilege to edit Misplaced Pages be revoked for a period of 30 days, effective beginning 11 Feb 2004 18:32 UTC

This revocation to include all Wikimedia wikis, and enforced using technical measures only if necessary. (It has been pointed out that this decree can only apply to Misplaced Pages sites in English)

Further, all editors are encouraged to revert any questionable edits made by Mr-Natural-Health without discussion or concurrence of the community for a period of 30 days following his return to the community at the end of the revocation period.

Furthermore he is consistently manifesting many signs of OWNERSHIP, including making demands of other editors, ridiculing them, preventing them from making any changes to his own plan for the total format of all that is included in his new portal, IOW all subjects related to CAM, which of course consists of all alternative medicine subjects.

I have asked John Gohde for sources and am not getting them. For some time now he has been showing his ownership of many articles and a portal, included OR, and used ALL CAPS and bold letters in his many attacks on many editors. John (Mr-Natural-Health) has previously been banned (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health), has a long history of disruption and contentious editing here, and he's doing it all again. If anyone wants to start an RFC/U or ArbCom, I will support it. I just don't have the time or energy to start it myself. He's guilty of all the original charges that got him banned in the first place. -- Fyslee / talk 02:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee is cautioned

"Fyslee is cautioned: Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." See more ... -- John Gohde (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true. Fine with me. -- Fyslee / talk 02:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin

1. 18:02, 15 December 2007

Ronz

1. 12:03, 16 December 2007

-- John Gohde (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)