User talk:Arion 3x3/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Questionable medicine

Since you mentioned statins, I was recently recommended bisphosphonates for osteoporosis by an orthopedist on the basis of a bone density scan, which is not diagnostic for someone of my age, sex and body type. I got a referral to an endocrinologist and he reversed the diagnosis, and also we discussed what the long term effects of bisphosphonates are. In short, they don't improve bone health and increase the risk of fracture. I can honestly find no justification for them ever to be given. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your mention of biophosphonates makes me wonder whether the orthopedist was influenced by the recent television and radio ad campaign for Fosamax. Fosamax and other such biophosphonates appear to be potentially extremely dangerous. There have been a number of front page stories in various newspapers over the last 12 months, including the New York Times, recounting horror stories from people who had taken these drugs and as a result their jaw bones were crumbling (osteonecrosis of the jaw)!
The drug companies use the claim: "Bisphosphonates, such as alendronate (Fosamax), slow the rate at which bone dissolves and is absorbed into the body, resulting in increased bone density and strength." The truth is that Fosamax and the other bisphosphonates do not build bone. They are anti-resorptives. They simply prevent the oseoclasts from resorbing bone. They do this by binding to the active sites of resorption and prevent the osteoclasts from absorbing calcium out of bones. What is one of the purposes for osteoclasts in human physiology? In order to maintain the proper acid/alkaline balance in the body, they draw calcium from bones to act as a neutralizer when there is excessive acid in the system. What do you think will happen if you stop them from fulfilling their normal function?
The number of reported victims of this drug's side effects is increasing, with more complaints of stomach problems, esophageal ulcers, and severe acid-reflux disease. I personally have a friend who has been suffering from esophageal lining irritation as a side-effect of Fosamax. This is all being brought to us by our "scientific" medical benefactors.
The situation has actually gotten severely out of hand. Just as the medical fad of the last decade was giving female hormones to every woman who came to the medical doctor's office over the age of 45, now that has been replaced by Fosamax (or another biophosphate) being given to every middle age woman - and man - to "prevent osteoporosis"! Practically every time I ask a new patient that has previously been to a conventional medical doctor what drugs they are taking, they proudly announce that they are taking their Fosamax and Lipitor as prescribed. I doubt we will hear anything about this dangerous new medical fad from our friends at Quackwatch. They are too busy "protecting" us from the "scam artists" - namely those in the complementary healing arts. User:Arion 3x3 (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, once I went back to the orthopedist it was clear he'd talked to the endocrinologist and he backed up and said as well that bisphosphonates may cause bones to become brittle and it was very interesting that he'd done an about face. I don't want to say more here. —Whig (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Arsenicum album

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arsenicum album, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album. Thank you. TableMannersC·U·T 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In your statement in the Arbcom case, you mentioned:
I maintain that this is a general encyclopedia that should be a handy source of information, and a starting place for people wanting to pursue further research into a topic. It is not a "Skeptics Encyclopedia" in which mainstream scientific opinions are portrayed as the only reality, and non-mainstream topics are dismissed with insulting labels ("pseudoscience", "fringe", "junk science", etc.), and scientific evidence that does not fit the current mainstream is ignored or dismissed, with endless questioning of their validity and where they have been published.
Taking the specific example of the article about homeopathy: it is about homeopathy, pure and simple, not about "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine". However "homeopathy and how it is viewed within mainstream medicine" could (and should) be a subsection of the article on the topic of "homeopathy".
Per: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience, we already have policies that rather explicitly state that we do in fact tag non-mainstream scientific theories as such.
I understand that you disagree with that position. But it's well established Wikipedia policy.
Railing against it in this manner on an Arbcom case won't help matters. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First, I myself disagree that Pseudoscience (whatever that may comprise) should be treated the same way as science in the encyclopedia, which I consider intrinsically secular. Our purpose is educational and, for example, describing snake oil as a cure for cancer would be disinformative. (Just to give an extreme, cliche example.) Alternate "modalities of truth" shlould be distinguished from scientific, judicial, logical, revealed, and other kinds of truth. Homeopathy may be some kind of truth but it is not, so far as scientists currently generally comprehend it, scientific truth. That said, I'd be very interested in a specific single case history of the use of a strictly homeopathic remedy by a modern licensed physician; perhaps you can point me to one? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by calling it "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note...

Your archive is actually in the main space...you should move it to User talk:Arion 3x3/Archive 1. Then leave a {{db-rediruser}} on the cross-space redirect that will leave. Let me know if you have any questions or need help. — Scientizzle 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI discussion

In order to determine whether there's any problem with the fact that you work as a Homeopath, I've opened an item at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Homeopathy. You are welcome to express your own viewpoint on the matter there. Note that I'm not personally sure whether this actually qualifies as a COI problem; I'd just prefer to get it cleared up so we don't get distracted arguing about something like this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just incidentally, the wikipolicy regarding conflict of interest pertains to content disputes; that is, where there is no content dispute, there is no COI. In the absence of content issues the COI insinuation can be disruptive itself, but it looks like the topic has been dropped at the ANI COI item. Pete St.John (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Homoepathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've been banned from the page by East

Beware. I've been banned. Anthon01 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporarily banned from Talk:Homeopathy

This edit series [1] was a little too confrontational and I regretfully think that it's best if you stay off Talk:Homeopathy for the next 24 hrs to let things settle down. Please consider this a community topic probation ban until this time tomorrow. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Was action taken with respect to User:Filll's involvement in this dispute? —Whig (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still looking at edits over the last few hours but haven't concluded any other specific editors need sanctioning at the moment. Nor am I done looking, however.
Also; Technically, Arion did one edit to rearrange the talk page right after the caution / ban was given here - however, I believe that it was an edit in progress as I left my warning here, and the edit was a harmless organizational edit to group conversations, so there's no harm or foul with that and I don't consider it as being a violation of the short ban. You should stop now, though 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Replying to the comment on my talk page... I think that Filll was being more generic than attacking you personally. Two other editors on the talk page seem to have agreed with that. I don't want to deny you the ability to participate in give and take discussions - but I and others believe that your particular response went too far there, hence the short temporary ban.
I think you may have taken his comments as personally aimed at you; I think I understand why you might have concluded that, but I don't think that's what he intended. Having uninvolved administrators here to help referee helps spot situations like this. Nothing is going to happen in the next 24 hrs that your not commenting on it will cause irreparable harm, and I hope that you taking some time to not participate will help bring you perspective and help you work with everyone to balance your concerns and theirs in the long term. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought Filll's comment was logical, coherent, cogent and on the mark: deal with the article, fuck the drama. OK, that's crude (maybe rude), but y'all need to stop the feud. Jehochman has a page for improving the article: besides me, only a semi-bot has offered anything. Sad, very sad. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand everyone's desire for order and civility on the Homeopathy topic. However having me banned for 24 hours makes no sense to me. I was simply objecting to Filll's attack upon my response to another person's comments - calling my comments "meaningless drivel and spam". I still do not understand why my objecting to another's incivility and lack of repect would be a reason to ban me. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the link cited for the block looks pallid to me as a rationale. Pete St.John (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many vs. some

Was your response to me? It looks like you placed it above my question. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to "Scientizzle" who was asking for a specific example. So I pointed out that the use of "some" and "many" have very different connotations, and that "many" can be used to argue a position in a perjorative way . Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit summary

You were engaged in a struggle for editorial control when you made this edit [2] that included an edit summary "see talk", but you did not make any talk page comments or otherwise try to resolve editorial differences. Given the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "See talk" because that's exactly what I meant. There was nothing "deceptive" about it. There are several extremely long and extensive discussions about why there should be the simple mention (with no claims) that belladonna is used in manufacturing homeopathic products. We have been admonished: "Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article" [[3]]. For me to have again repeated this same point that was made repeatedly by other editors on this very point did not seem right. Please consider lifting this ban. I had refrained from making any comments on that talk page for the very reason that it would seem unduly repetitive - which I thought was one of the things we were trying to avoid with the homeopathy probation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Struggling for editorial control of homeopathy articles is to be avoided. It is better to leave the wrong version and discuss the matter. Go slow, obtain consensus and let somebody else fix it. Consider editing other things for a little while. Jehochman Talk 19:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe administrative sanctions under the homeopathy probation can be appealed to WP:AN. —Whig (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:AN the editing restriction is modified. Instead of being banned, you are placed on 1RR (one revert per day) limitation for all homeopathy related pages, and must explain any reverts on the relevant talk page. Jehochman Talk 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [4] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and editorializing

I apologize if my comment to Talk:Arsenicum album#Disappointed sounded like an aspersion on your reading of policy. I intended merely to elaborate on my reading of Filll's comment with an explanatory link. Then again, maybe I am misreading the tone of your comment just now, in which case this note is hopefully an error on the side of civility. In any case, good luck getting anything accomplished with that discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Arion, just giving some good faith advice. You should try to use diffs to show where you got the quotes from. For example, when you added this quote [5] you should have put a diff to the Shoemaker's comment where you got the quote from, or at least a link to the discussion section where the comment happened. The sentence would look like this:
"He stated untruths (such as "pushes for inclusion of a huge section ", like he did here) and took matters out of context."
You should also provide a diff for where you got the OffTheFence's quote from on "Clear example of the problem - and its not Dana", and for Shoemaker's comment on "Opponents of Dana use every tactic to dismiss important research". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi Arion. You have been blocked. Though it is indefinite, this is not intended to be infinite, but rather as long as the community decides, so consider it as "expiry undetermined." You can see my reasoning here, and the discussion, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_blocked_for_attempted_outing. You are currently free to post here in response, but please do not repost your suspicions about an editor' real life identity, or that privilege will have to be revoked. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment was "Tactics like his have been seen before". This was in reference to similar tactics of trying to discredit another editor's integrity, not to "outing" anyone. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arion, you would need to publicly commit not to make these type of comments again, as a way for you to get unblocked so that you can participate in the ArbCom case you are a party. Otherwise I do not see how this block will be lifted: Blocks are preventative, and it is justified unless you desist from making these type of insinuations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I publicly commit to not make these type of comments again. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "these type of comments". There was an editor who agreed not do certain things, but kept redefining his interpretation of what they were, leading to an indefinite block. He's since reformed, but he had previous agreed to one of the conditions, claiming it was all of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I used the wording suggested by jossi. To clarify still further, I will always contact an Administrator when a mean-spirited attack is launched upon me. I will not compare anyone's behavior towards me to anyone else's, but will always take it to an Administrator. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I furthermore promise to be extremely careful to refrain from any activity, insinuations, accusations, that could be construed as an attempt to uncover or release the identity of a Wikipedia user. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are now unblocked. Please stay close to your committment above, otherwise the indef-block will be reinstated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)