Mr. Natural Health gets Banned 2nd Time

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. — John Gohde 04:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own. — John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 13:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Why do judges and lawyers scream so much in court?

I noticed you were wondering about this topic. It has fascinated me for years, being a lawyer and someone with a naturally loud voice I have been accused more than once for “yelling” when I was speaking in my normal voice. I think that judges get very frustrated when lawyers in front of them don’t agree with their approach to the law and lawyers scream at judges because there are some judges (especially at the trial level) that are not always right and appeal is such an expensive undertaking that it frustrates lawyers to be forced into such a position by a judge. Also keep in mind that many judges are elderly and their hearing may not be that great so a lawyer may have to resort to yelling to get heard. But by far the most common reason that there are “screaming litigators” (note that not all, or even many lawyers, are litigators) is that their clients scream at them or demand they do the impossible. Just some observations. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 18:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Position on Alternative medicine

I have laid out my case in talk:alternative medicine quite well. It is not a case of adding. I want to remove one irrational paragraph (the JREF prize criticism) based upon its non-compliance with a number of clearly established Wikipedia Guidelines.

There are a number of possible academic arguments that can be made against the field of alternative medicine. I could list them *all* myself. In fact, I wrote most of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section.

What I want are *all* the rational clearly established criticisms added to the article and all the irrational nonsense against alternative medicine taken out so that the current state of edit wars can end. It is as simple and as plain as that. — John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Wellness

John, agreed the box at the bottom looks good. The first sentence of wellness is quite cumbersome. So, am I to understand, these new boxes like the one at the bottom of wellness are to go…on which articles? The ones without the infobox? I’m a bit confused.
I do agree it seems odd that scientists would want to contribute to the wellness article, but I guess that part comes later. User:Fire Star and I did some major work on the article that became medical acupuncture, should you have any interest. It could turn into an upheaval (renamed the article, among other things) but so far nobody else has shown any interest. heidimo 03:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, Andrew Weil MD claims that the only form of acupuncture that is legal in the US is medical acupuncture and that form differs from the one used in TCM. So that fact alone should justify more than one article on the subject. If a science geek wrote those articles they would have been labeled Acupuncture (Medical) and Acupuncture (TCM). I have come across a number of duplicate medical articles for some obsure reason labeled that way. Have you seen Stress (medicine)? It is really very funny how the scientific mind thinks.

I have no idea where Weil got that idea–strikes me as odd. I got the impression that anything TCM-related is outside his knowledge base, but I haven’t been following him for years. I am still amazed that scientists want so badly to be so involved in the TCM article–what does science have to do with TCM? Like incorporating a scientific viewpoint on an article on poetry or calligraphy to my mind, but that’s just my POV. I think science’s views of TCM belong in an “alternative viewpoints” paragraph at the end of the article, if that is the way TCM points of view can be included in other articles which are mostly about science or allopathy. Thoughts? heidimo 17:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I think science’s views of TCM belong in an “alternative viewpoints” paragraph at the end of the article, if that is the way TCM points of view can be included in other articles which are mostly about science or allopathy. Thoughts?” I just now saw this comment.
Agreed! We will do this in Phase V of the project. As long as we do everything in the proper sequence, we should receive absolutely no resistance. They can complain about sour grapes on the talk pages all that they want to, but there is little that they can do about it since it is a matter of established Wikipedian guidelines. — John Gohde 17:07, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

As to Stress (medicine)? Amazingly worthless, in my POV. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but science people would find any value here, or bother to read the whole thing. heidimo 17:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I will reply tomorrow in detail about which infobox to use on talk:Infoboxes on our project talk page. — John Gohde 06:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

suggestions

I am open to suggestion as to how I might best help the wikiproject along at this stage. I think it is too soon to start another edit war over TCM, but I am keeping your suggestions handy for the future. Is irismeister still on board this project? Haven’t seen a sign of (him?) in a while. heidimo 17:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister is currently on 2 weeks medical leave, what ever that means.
I am currently working on finding lost articles related to CAM. I have found scores of them, so far. See Open Tasks in announcements.
We should also be working on adding infoxboxes to the major branches of alternative medicine. See Phase I in announcements.
I am for slowing the project down and avoiding edit wars while we get this project operational and debugged. Click on this, Enlightenment, for the latest change.

  • It is very important to debug our classification systems at this point. We need to avoid using N/A in our infoboxes, except for TCM. And, to classify all the major branches of CAM. If we cannot, that means we might have to make more changes.
I would still advocate thinning TCM down to an outline of stuff contained in other articles. — John Gohde 17:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at it now. heidimo 16:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Looks great! Take a look at the infobox I added to History of traditional Chinese medicine. You just created our first history article, too!!! I just added it to the history list article. Well done, Heidimo. — John Gohde 17:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! The infobox looks good. heidimo 04:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

RE: debugging, yes, that helps with TCM sub articles. I find the infobox categories difficult to apply, in the articles I have been working on. I think traditional Japanese medicine needs its own category, so I’m going to change the Shiatsu box. heidimo 15:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am new to wiki. I am a Bastyr trained TCM person with a lot of science in my background and 4 years of ND’s as roommates. As I see it science has very little place in a TCM web page. Yes, science is a nice tool but it has very very little relevance within TCM, especially it’s history. How do you keep it out of a page? Is it possible?–Magic.crow 01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Memo to Myself – A troll is a troll, even with the word science in front of it!

I recently commented to somebody that I do not want to get bogged down with editing specific articles and dealing with science kooks at this point. The wisdom of my comment has been recently confirmed.

The science kooks are actually science trolls. Wasting time in editing activities is precisely that! And, Trolls are editors who try to goad people into wasting their time. Don’t feed the trolls!

I will, now, return to looking at the bigger picture. The project made great strides without any interaction whatsoever with these trolls. So, I will now switch back to the bigger picture where I can continue to make great strides with the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine.

A troll is a troll, even with the word science in front of it. Just thought that you might want to know. — John Gohde 19:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

John, please visit Talk: Bribery. Thanks. heidimo 18:33, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

As you refused to discuss it or seek mediation, I’ve taken our dispute to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitrationDavid Gerard 09:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Using Mediawiki messages

Just dropping a note to let you know that {{msg:pagename}} inserts can be written as {{pagename}} now.– Jim Regan 02:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CamBottom

John, I must protest in the strongest possible terms the inserting of {{Cambottom}} on all medical pages. Just saying that “there is a CAM viewpoint on this disorder” is really insufficient. I support body text that states the CAM approach to medical disorders, but the box is disruptive, ugly (orange really clashes with all color schemes) and generally not informative. Again, I am completely in favor of the introduction of CAM viewpoints in articles, but NOT in the form of this box! JFW | T@lk 10:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

??? – Again it is no big deal. It is simply linking one of your useful articles to our database. That is what any project does. There are some 50 to 60 projects all of which use some kind of a box. Ours uses one of the smallest boxes used by any project. And, it is placed directly on the bottom of the article. Currently, articles are littered with these boxes as well as with an even older method of See other link lists. Until, I have a chance to take a look at how categories might solve this problem ours, like the some other 60 projects, will continue to use a tiny box. — John Gohde 14:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unless the text body provides grounds for the link, I am very much inclined to remove the boxes (I’ve restrained myself). The “article series” you’re referring to generally stick together much stronger than the articles you identify by adding Mediawiki:CamBottom. Please do everyone a favour and make a smaller box in a neutral colour…
I am not a good boxer <g> JFW | T@lk 15:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, far we have identified about 250 articles as being related to CAM. The degree of relateness goes from strong to weak. Last night, somebody strongly objected to our infobox on an article about the founder of Thompsonian which is strongly related to CAM. I think some people just like to complain in order to complain. The box is at the very bottom, not directly on top like the growing list of categories are.
Yes, a new smaller box with no color at all might work. Smaller, however, means less explanations
Scratch my comments about categories. Categories are those funy things on top of some articles that totally mess up the very top of the article. Seems to me that a large list of these categories on the very top the article is extremely objectionable. Perhaps, if they could place them at the very bottom of the article? — John Gohde 15:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

>I think some people just like to complain in order to complain.
I hope you’re referring to someone and not to undersigned 🙂
By the way, you were referring to User:Nunh-huh, a longstanding boxes sceptic (I had a similar argument with him over abdominal pain) and valued member of the Clin med wikiproject. He is not the type to complain in order to complain.

I am pleased that you are willing to review the design of the box. The category thing will hit off properly in the near future. You might actually want to start your own categorization headers. Category:Medicine and its branches (e.g. Category:Hematology) are growing! JFW | T@lk 15:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here it is. Our Article Series Box that does not even look like a box.

Template:CamTiny

Replace {{CamBottom}} with {{CamTiny}}. — John Gohde 15:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, it’s truly a pleasure to do business with you!
I would recommend expanding CAM into complimentary and alternative medicine. Not every potential reader of medical articles is familiar with the terminology, methinks…. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done — John Gohde 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the CAM box on some pages because even though they may be somewhat related to CAM, CAM is not their main category. I think the boxes distort the content of the articles somewhat. For example, with the CAM box on the Junk food article, it would seem to imply that junk food is an alternative medicine. At the momement there is also in many articles no explanation of why the CAM boxes should be there. Have you thought about maybe creating categories instead, like for example “food related to alternative medicine” or something like that? I think that would look better and be less ambiguous. Fuelbottle | Talk 03:21, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi! See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress — I reportedg catching User:Fuelbottle in the act of vandalizing a large number of my edits just a matter of 30 minutes or so ago. — [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 03:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see you have reported my edits as vandalism :/. The reason I removed the box from Lifestyle diseases is that it is very big even though alternative medicine have viewpoints on this, it is not something that is mainly a part of alternative medicine. As for the massage article, I belive that the box there should rather go to Manipulative therapy, because the massage article doesn’t, unlike manipulative therapy, even mention “alternative medicine” in the text.
This is not a project page. Clikc here [1]. Next, click here [2] and here category:alternative medicine. Try clicking on {{CamBottom}} or {{CamTiny}}. They all provide the same generic explaination. — [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 01:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, John!

Thank you for the work you do in AM and in Wiki at large, but especially for the cause of truth against all institutionalized intruders. I only found a few minutes to answer your kind request, and it was done. Please give me a hand in the limits of reasonably minimized loss of time in my stub Wikipolice here, or against its current VfD. Thank you, yours – irismeister 23:24, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC) PS A real pleasure for me too, in doing business with you! Did you hear we two were a “bunch of fanatics” :O). The Wikipolice is feeling the heavy breath of more lambs near their thick shewolf’s necks, methinks…

Parting statement

My original objective on Wikipedia was accomplished on day one before, I selected my user name. Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative_Medicine has proven my mental superiority to those of the science bigots on Wikipedia. My work on this project is done. If the other participants let this project die, then they deserve their fate. In my opinion, category:alternative medicine has progressed too far for these bigots to ever regain control of alternative medicine. While I would love to continue wasting huge amounts of time dealing with morons and bigots on Wikipedia, I happen to have a life. My original characterization of the gang of thugs on Wikipedia has been proven correct over and over again. Every where the topic of alternative medicine comes up, such as in past requests for comments regarding TK, a number of science bigots always manage to lace their comments with offensive quips regarding alternative medicine. I have been trying very hard to drastically cut back on my edits, here. But, every time that I do some troll rises to the occassion. — [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 04:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Latest work

John, I almost feel guilty for moaning again, but seeing your new paragraph to arterial hypertension plus the edit skirmish that followed, and additions to many other articles, prompts me to User_talk here again.

Some points:

  • You are only inserting statistical data on the uptake of alternative therapies by Americans. This makes the articles biased towards the US, while AFAIK the British use CAM treatments more often than Americans (correct me if I’m wrong).
  • Your additions focus on the amount of people who use CAM treatments. You do not mention which treatments are being used; I would actually be quite interested what CAM practicioners would recommend in asthma or hypercholesterolemia.
  • All articles refer to the same May 2004 report. Wouldn’t you prefer to write up a page on the report, mention its main conclusions, and give some data on their methodology?

I’m not sure who User:207-203-156-105 is, by the way. It seems to be a dedicated edit war account. JFW | T@lk 09:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

for the record, not me either, although, sorry John, frankly I like his work! Erich 12:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Erich gasboy, the tampon article beckons for your special touch. — [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]]!
geez mate that’s a bit rude. I thought you’d aprreciate my efforts on the pain article. Erich 01:03, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, CUT IT OUT. Could you give a sensible response to my posting, instead of making banal insults at someone who happens to disagree with you? JFW | T@lk 09:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration ruling

Per the Arbitration Committee’s final decision in your case, we have found that you have consistently and excessively violated Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For this we rule that you are banned from editing for three months. We have also found that you willfully worked against our article ban order of Irismeister by trying to act as a proxy editor. For this we add an additional week ban and an indefinite ban on editing Iridology and its talk page. I am very sorry to see that your behavior has not appreciably changed since you returned from your last ban. If you decide to return on 2 October 2004, then please do so with a collegial spirit and try to work with other users instead of against them. —mav 04:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also note that each time you try to subvert this ruling that your ban clock may be reset by the AC. —mav 01:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought the ban clock was automatically reset. That is how it was handled in Wik’s case. Guanaco 01:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Last attempt: 00:42, 1 Jul 2004, Cyrius blocked #6609 (expires 00:42, 2 Jul 2004) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by “Mr-Natural-Health“. The reason given for Mr-Natural-Health’s block is as follows: “Arbitration Committee ruling“.)David Gerard 16:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
10:00, 4 Jul 2004, Cyrius blocked #6683 (expires 10:00, 5 Jul 2004) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by “Mr-Natural-Health“. The reason given for Mr-Natural-Health’s block is as follows: “Arbitration Committee ruling“.)
01:40, 7 Jul 2004, Cyrius blocked #6766 (expires 01:40, 8 Jul 2004) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by “Mr-Natural-Health“. The reason given for Mr-Natural-Health’s block is as follows: “Arbitration Committee ruling“.)
I believe Guanaco is correct regards the ban clock being automatically reset. Martin 14:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it’s time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you?Ryan! | Talk 05:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi I’ve been trying to make Gillian McKeith more NPOV. I don’t particularly have a view but it doesn’t look NPOV as it is. You seem to be in to similar issues as this so I was wondering if you could have a look, or send someone you know on wiki who’s into similar things but is in the UK, to look at it.Merkinsmum 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr-Natural-Health
All text on this page is available under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License.
Advertisements
Published on January 24, 2008 at 10:25 pm  Comments Off on Mr. Natural Health gets Banned 2nd Time  
%d bloggers like this: