User talk:John Gohde

User:John Gohde/archive
User:John Gohde/notes

Email Me

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

John H. Gohde, Natural Health Advocate

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

Welcome to my talk page.

This is My Talk page. In my home: Nasty, rude, threatening, and / or impolite comments, or postings by editors that I just plain do not like because they have NOT been nice, will be deleted by me.

So, kiss up to me on my talk page or your comments will be deleted.

---

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 ^discuss 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 discuss 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Joy

Marlith ^T/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.

Marlith ^T/C 03:07, 22 November 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia: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)

Canvasing - Whatever...

From my own theories on this, the above board way that the some Wiki groups seem to do an alternative action to Canvasing is to use bot-generated lists that examine the tags within articles up for Afd. Other tags are added to the Afd discussion page (and placed in small print). The lists are probably placed on the top of the watch list for each person wanting to participate in Afd discussions of special interest types of articles. The bot might be written to organize or target the categories of the Afd articles. Certain favorite targets for contributors with a propensity for a certain kind of editing is facilitated by the category sorting that may be performed by this bot processing. So for example, if the given list watcher wishs to be voice their irrational opinions and illogical reasonings about a particular area of knowledge, they can target their efforts in a very focused way using these lists. The obvious way to achieve identical well organized representation of the alt-med interest groups for articles within their areas of interest might well be to follow the fine examples demonstrated by others in this regard so as to legally skirt the letter of the law, but obtain results as though completely disregarding it avoid breaking the rules. I found one person doing a tip-toe approach to the this issue by quickly logging out of WP so that he / she became an anonymous IP user. They then discretely visited other WP users' talk pages and left cryptic messages for them regarding a particular article that was under heated discussions. It could well be that the well organized groups using these list processing methods had a great deal of input into the writing of the canvasing policy / guideline article so that they could point fingers at groups and individuals who were not yet at their level of sophistication in these various regards. Are you talking about me? (who are you again?) Oldspammer (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have voted sooner, but I had to deal with some of my own problems. I am getting rather tired of these people openly posting threats on my talk page. I also recall in the distant past that somebody tried to dictate to me what I could and could not do on my own talk page. As I recall, I won that issue. Anything that I don't like, I will delete. -- John Gohde (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to delete material from your user talk page, just as Oldspammer is free to continue seeing conspiracies everywhere. I will say, in the interest of being informative, that the "small print" notices at AfD that Oldspammer attaches so much sinister significance to are the work of the deletion-sorting WikiProject. Anyone can view the listings, bookmark them, comment as they wish, etc. In addition, anyone can propose changes to how the deletion-sorting project tags and categorizes AfD's. Finally, anyone can view the history of the WP:CANVASS guideline and see exactly who has contributed what to the guideline. I'm not sure that will assuage a particularly deepset conspiracy theory, but I'd invite you to take a look. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom section: "John Gohde: Understanding policies"

Hi John,

At your ArbCom, a section was included that read:

John Gohde: Understanding policies

4.1) User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again. [1]

Since you are editing Wikipedia, I assume you have fulfilled this requirement. Please provide me with the URL for both of your 200 word essays. I would like to read your conclusions. -- Fyslee / talk 01:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing nothing about an URL. -- John Gohde (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then please provide us with a copy of your two essays. You can do it here, or send them by email. The important thing is documentation that you have fulfilled the ArbCom conditions for editing again. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK

Please do not remove your own comments from talk pages when others have already replied to those comments. [2] [3] See Wikipedia:TALK#Own_comments --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good points by Ronz. Your deletions of many of your comments should be reverted and then probably strucken through, with an inserted placeholder documenting when the change was made. -- Fyslee / talk 07:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)