| Revision as of 09:42, 17 January 2014 editBritmax (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,625 edits →Kercher: This one?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:18, 18 January 2014 edit undoOveragainst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,667 edits →What is it going to take?Next edit → | ||
| Line 380: | Line 380: | ||
| :::::::::Arrest of the trio on suspicion of "involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm" is not incompatible with Dompig and his men believing from the earliest days of the investigation that Natalee had probably died from serious negligence by the trio related to supplying drugs and failing to get medical attention for someone who collapsed; note they were never arrested on suspicion of '''''rape''''' and '''''murder''''', despite lying to the police and implicating innocent men (a serious offence in most countries). Whether or not it's true that from the begining Dompig conducted the investigation in line with his 2008 statment that "we are not talking about killers here", the fact is Beth Holloway said the Arubans went about the enquiry as if they thought the trio were not killers, yet the article gives a quite diffferent impression of what Beth's contention or complaint was. What ''is'' front and centre in the article lede is "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." That is misrepresenting what Natalee Holloway's parents were saying as can be seen in the article where it clearly says: "According to Julia Renfro, U.S.-born editor of the Aruban tourist-oriented newspaper, Aruba Today, who befriended Twitty in the early days of the investigation ... '''within a couple of days''', after fixing responsibility on Joran van der Sloot, (Beth) Twittywas telling TV interviewers that she knew her daughter had been '''gang-raped and murdered'''".". So Holloway's family knew she was gone forever and were not making the unreasonable demand thoughout the investigation that Aruban authorities should find their daughter. I think it would be far more encyclopedic and accurate for the lede to say 'Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her". ] (]) 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::Arrest of the trio on suspicion of "involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm" is not incompatible with Dompig and his men believing from the earliest days of the investigation that Natalee had probably died from serious negligence by the trio related to supplying drugs and failing to get medical attention for someone who collapsed; note they were never arrested on suspicion of '''''rape''''' and '''''murder''''', despite lying to the police and implicating innocent men (a serious offence in most countries). Whether or not it's true that from the begining Dompig conducted the investigation in line with his 2008 statment that "we are not talking about killers here", the fact is Beth Holloway said the Arubans went about the enquiry as if they thought the trio were not killers, yet the article gives a quite diffferent impression of what Beth's contention or complaint was. What ''is'' front and centre in the article lede is "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." That is misrepresenting what Natalee Holloway's parents were saying as can be seen in the article where it clearly says: "According to Julia Renfro, U.S.-born editor of the Aruban tourist-oriented newspaper, Aruba Today, who befriended Twitty in the early days of the investigation ... '''within a couple of days''', after fixing responsibility on Joran van der Sloot, (Beth) Twittywas telling TV interviewers that she knew her daughter had been '''gang-raped and murdered'''".". So Holloway's family knew she was gone forever and were not making the unreasonable demand thoughout the investigation that Aruban authorities should find their daughter. I think it would be far more encyclopedic and accurate for the lede to say 'Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her". ] (]) 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::A sentence like "''Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her''" would not be a problem.—](]) 03:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | ::::::::::A sentence like "''Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her''" would not be a problem.—](]) 03:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::If that proposed text were added I will be satisfied and stop chipping.] (]) 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 17:18, 18 January 2014
|
Medical articles
Hi,
A note, when adding information about medical articles, particularly when making medical claims, the standards of reliable sources are elevated. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for more information on this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vitamin D
Hi, thanks for your valuable contributions to the Vitamin D article, just don't forget this article was splitted in other articles like Hypovitaminosis D and hypervitaminosis D. If possible update them as well to reflect the changes you make in Vitamin D. Thank you. --Nutriveg (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Vitamin D
- Hello SBHarris. I've just looked at your contribs and see that you are exceedingly busy but... I have to absent myself from the information superhighway for a few days and was wondering if you have some time to offer Overagainst some guidance in conforming Vitamin D to WP:MEDRS, WP:SYN and WP:OR. He/she is holding off editing for the moment and has proposed some reworked passages on the talk page. Your advice would be very welcome, if you can fit it in. Anthony (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
'You're that mouse with high vitamin D activity, how's that working out for you' from .
I'll leave there - although there is a lot more I could say on the subject - I think what you're doing with D supplementation is harming you. How sure am I? Pretty sure. Overagainst (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't. The photo in the study you reference above is from a mouse with NO vitamin D (acutally it's a receptor knockout mouse, so it's the same as if it wasn't getting any). It has nothing to do with high vitamin D. Chyu's study of lifeguards in 1971 found levels of 64 ng/mL on average. I don't think they were harming themselves, except as skin cancer risks. 20 min of tropical sun will give you 5000 IU. Levels of vitamin D at in my range were seen in sun exposed people in Hawaii, including some supplemented at 6400 IU. My urine calcium/creatinine ratio is normal. So what is it you think's going going to go wrong with me? SBHarris 23:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, but - a photo of a mouse with high vitamin D activity would look the same as that. "In several studies, we have described that a complete or partial lack of vitamin D action (VDR-/- mice and CYP27B1-/-) show almost similar phenotype as FGF23-/- or Klotho-/- mice. VDR mutant mice have growth retardation, osteoporosis, kyphosis, skin thickening and wrinkling, alopecia, ectopic calcification, progressive loss of hearing and balance as well as short lifespan. CYP27B1-/- mice do not show alopecia nor balance deficit, which might be apoVDR-dependent or calcidiol-dependent. The features are typical to premature aging. The phenotype is resistant to a normalization of the mineral homeostasis by a rescue diet containing high calcium and phosphate. Taken together, aging shows a U-shaped dependency on hormonal forms of vitamin D suggesting that there is an optimal concentration of vitamin D in delaying aging phenomena." Overagainst (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to prove that a hypervitaminosis D mouse looks like that, you have to show it. And what's the dose? And has it been given as calcitriol to bypass the normal enzymes that guard against effective overdose? These things make a difference.
The article you quoted is mostly about low vitamin D. The stuff about high vitamin D and aging really has little evidence to support a very thin hypothesis. Children with too much D suffere "rapid aging"? What does THAT mean? They mature faster, or they get progeria? We're not told, and I'm skeptical. Prove it. Being a gerontologist, I've seen a lot of papers claiming "rapid aging" which was really toxicity at shamelessly high doses of something. There's a U-shaped curve for natural D level and later risk of prostate cancer? Okay, but it's one study which has never been repeated. Furthermore, there are lots of other cancers where the evidence is the more the better, so which effect wins out? It makes a difference. I'm most interested in a putative U-shaped correlation between D and total mortality, but that paper is not even on medline. Why isn't it in a peer reviewed journal? All in all, you leave me very little. SBHarris 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to prove that a hypervitaminosis D mouse looks like that, you have to show it. And what's the dose? And has it been given as calcitriol to bypass the normal enzymes that guard against effective overdose? These things make a difference.
- You're right, but - a photo of a mouse with high vitamin D activity would look the same as that. "In several studies, we have described that a complete or partial lack of vitamin D action (VDR-/- mice and CYP27B1-/-) show almost similar phenotype as FGF23-/- or Klotho-/- mice. VDR mutant mice have growth retardation, osteoporosis, kyphosis, skin thickening and wrinkling, alopecia, ectopic calcification, progressive loss of hearing and balance as well as short lifespan. CYP27B1-/- mice do not show alopecia nor balance deficit, which might be apoVDR-dependent or calcidiol-dependent. The features are typical to premature aging. The phenotype is resistant to a normalization of the mineral homeostasis by a rescue diet containing high calcium and phosphate. Taken together, aging shows a U-shaped dependency on hormonal forms of vitamin D suggesting that there is an optimal concentration of vitamin D in delaying aging phenomena." Overagainst (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even if one accepts the rationale for attaining the 25(OH)D level of an extremely sun exposed person by supplemetation (more is better, oral intake = skin synthesis). I don't understand why anyone would choose to go so much higher than the average of lifeguards. The world record individual 25(OH)D concentration is 90ng/mL, a farmer in Puerto Rico. You think natural selection is trying to cheat us out of higher D levels? Overagainst (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, but that's only an argument for not going above 90 ng/mL. As for not going above the average for lifeguards (64 ng/mL I think), why not? Are you really that afraid of having your vitamin levels in the upper ranges of normal, rather than simply average?
As for "natural selection" and lower levels, remember that natural selection is working with severe constraints of trying to balance rickets (and perhaps other kinds of minor ill health from decreased immunity and later cancer and osteoporosis incidence) with freezing to death. Since the latter happens immediately and soon, and the other things happen later, or are more severe) I can well believe that nature might have shorted D to the mimimum while lightening skin to the max for the Nords and Irish as soon as they switched to aggriculture and didn't get D from their diets. That must have happened very recently (10,000 years or less) since aggriculture is a fairly recent invention. It's not an argument for letting your D levels fall as low as those populations do, under severe selective pressures from climate and diet. SBHarris 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, but that's only an argument for not going above 90 ng/mL. As for not going above the average for lifeguards (64 ng/mL I think), why not? Are you really that afraid of having your vitamin levels in the upper ranges of normal, rather than simply average?
Another reminder
It's a really good idea to keep article edits that have to do with human genetics sourced to strictly reliable sources for medicine, as there are many speculative primary research articles on such subjects that are never replicated and more likely than not false. I look forward to discussing article edits with you on article talk pages. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
New double blind result
Perhaps there are no contradictions with the results found by Freedman et al., it is just that, taken in isolation, you have multiple interpretations of the result found by Freedman. So, while you can postulate that taking vitamin D supplements can give rise to artherosclerotic plaque, it is also possible that, if you are prescribed vitamin D supplements, then that means that you have had low vitamin D levels for a very long time (because vitamin D testing and supppementation is only recently done on a routine basis).
If low vitamin D levels are a contributing factor to building up artherosclerotic plaque, that will then already have happened. The patients with low circulating vitamin D will, on average, have had higher vitamin D levels, so that their doctors did not prescribe them vitamin D supplements. They will thus have lower amounts of artherosclerotic plaque. Count Iblis (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Speculation
Just to drive the point home; many of your comments on the MoMK home page appear to be your own speculation or view on events and proceedings. (e.g. "Actually now I come to think about it..." or "Here is something to think about..."). This is not appropriate, especially because this event (and related speculation) includes details of living people. Our own views and opinions are not relevant to the case, and we need to rely purely on reliably published material, presented in a neutral and restrained tone (this is an additional problem I've noted). If you have strong opinions on this case it might be worth stepping into other topic areas if you feel you are unable to put aside those views when working on the article :) --Errant 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand you think that you are defending the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Perhaps you should wait and see if what I do improves the article before laying down the law in relation to the occasional usage (once each) of phrases on Talk pages. Coming up with some useful references and linking to them would be nice. The presence of an administrator means that any violations of the guidelines will be pointed out to me. You may be pleasantly surprised by my edits. Overagainst (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- "includes details of living people" You can only be referring to one of three people Guede (a definitively convicted murderer who told a story which slandered his victim) and two other people who have been acquitted of involvement in a crime for which Guede has been convicted. You seem to be annoyed that I mention the lenient treatment that Guede has received. There is support from the best sources (mentioned by Slim) for what I said. "Come to think of it" does not mean "I have no support for what I say" But I'll stop using the phase, which I have in fact used only one time, if it annoys you that much. Overagainst (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The "phrases" are just the first few words to example the problem. I understand you are trying to contribute constructively - I am trying to explain the material you have added, or tried to add, so far has some problems in tone and presentation. And that extended speculation (which you are doing, unfortunately) is not appropriate. For example "Maybe he was too stupid to think of it." is pure speculation and absolutely not appropriate. Nothing is annoying me, and that sort of attitude/response is not very helpful :S We've had extensive problems with speculation and wild theories etc. on the talk page in the past so there is a very low tolerance of them now. --Errant 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Guide is a definitively convicted murderer who told a story about trying to save his victim. And this you claim, is what constitutes an 'apology'. That is simply false. You have said that Guide apologized. He did not. You said that his reduction was nothing to do with his testimony. That is not a neutral position, it is the most outlandish speculation that one could make and not credible. Misplaced Pages would hemorrhage credibility the minute that appeared on the page. Overagainst (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think your talking about someone else, because I never said those things. Look; bottom line is leave your opinions and your own ideas at the door, that is the way we do things :) Cheers. --Errant 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming I have got mixed up - sorry. It is possible to advance a viewpoint without openly stating it. Please stop attributing bias to others and thereby claiming to be totally objective without openly saying so. Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think your talking about someone else, because I never said those things. Look; bottom line is leave your opinions and your own ideas at the door, that is the way we do things :) Cheers. --Errant 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Guide is a definitively convicted murderer who told a story about trying to save his victim. And this you claim, is what constitutes an 'apology'. That is simply false. You have said that Guide apologized. He did not. You said that his reduction was nothing to do with his testimony. That is not a neutral position, it is the most outlandish speculation that one could make and not credible. Misplaced Pages would hemorrhage credibility the minute that appeared on the page. Overagainst (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The "phrases" are just the first few words to example the problem. I understand you are trying to contribute constructively - I am trying to explain the material you have added, or tried to add, so far has some problems in tone and presentation. And that extended speculation (which you are doing, unfortunately) is not appropriate. For example "Maybe he was too stupid to think of it." is pure speculation and absolutely not appropriate. Nothing is annoying me, and that sort of attitude/response is not very helpful :S We've had extensive problems with speculation and wild theories etc. on the talk page in the past so there is a very low tolerance of them now. --Errant 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Warning: edit warring
Hello Overagainst. You have now made the same change to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article three times in the past 6 hours (first, second, third). Be warned that this constitutes edit warring which is against Misplaced Pages policy and community standards. Please note that should you continue to revert changes to the article, you may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule and/or community standards on edit warring. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was just going to post this here as well. Overagainst, I suggest reading the 3RR rule (linked in Deskana's post above). If you make one more revert on the article of any kind, in any place of the article, for almost any reason in the next 18 hours, you will be in breach of the policy and probably subject to a short block. Furthermore, you may already have breached the rule if you have made a different reversion elsewhere in the article (I didn't check and don't intend on reporting you unless you revert this specific section again). Rules like this are in place to prevent edit warring and to allow the article to progress as the wider consensus dictates.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have reported your edit warring here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have reported your edit warring here.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
MoMK
Hello. I have replied to your statement below:
"Hmm, I knew that it is a very serious thing to be denounced in some legal systems and it's understandble that the penalty for false allegations is greater. But I don't think you could make an analogy with making false alegations in Britain. The allegation was made in an official statement. If a sworn statement had been legally adjudged to have been improperly obtained (Knox's was} in Britain you would never be charged with perjury for making the allegations it contained, it is most unlikely they would charge you with Perverting the course of justice either. It seems to me the Italian system lets prosecuters switch feet between criminal and civil proceedings."
Apologies for not responding sooner, I lost it in the (rather long) discussion on the page. Now that our discussion has essentially left the track of discussing the MoMK article, if you would like to discuss further I would suggest we do so on a talk page. Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
Vit D
The big issue with the previous content was that it was based on primary research. I have removed much of this and replaced it with reviews. Happy to discuss. More work still needed though. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed your lengthy post at WT:MEDRS. That page is for discussing the guideline. The vitamin D talk page is the place to discuss sources for that article. If you want additional comments, please post a short request at WP:MED or ask at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Colin° 11:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doc James said he might bring the issue up at WT:MEDRS that and the title of the page 'talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)' meant I had no reason to think the status of a major IoM report would be so off topic there. Overagainst (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- There may be a general issue to debate at MEDRS but your post was too specific, to concerned with article and source content, and way too long. I think generally a committee guideline report by a respected set of professionals would be regarded higher than a review by one or a few individuals. But I don't know the specifics of this case and there are others more qualified to judge that article's issues than me. :Colin° 15:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was too long winded and specific, as you said. The general issue as I see it is the question of whether a major report from the Institute of Medicine carries more weight that any number of reviews. A collage of systemic reviews does not trump a big IoM report I think. Overagainst (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- There may be a general issue to debate at MEDRS but your post was too specific, to concerned with article and source content, and way too long. I think generally a committee guideline report by a respected set of professionals would be regarded higher than a review by one or a few individuals. But I don't know the specifics of this case and there are others more qualified to judge that article's issues than me. :Colin° 15:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
We are not talking about trumping one or the other just representing both review articles and the IoM report.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
A couple of things
Wondering if we could agree on two things for starters
- Use review articles and the IoM report per WP:MEDRS
- Combine the "Vit D and health outcomes" into "Health effects"?
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- You continue to cite interviews with scientists and sites that cover medicine in a popular format. This are not appropriate references/ Please stick with review articles and the text from the IoM. I would disagree that one can "cherry pick" review articles to say whatever one likes. Especially if we are only using review articles form the last 5 years.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Overagainst, I think you reverted a lot of my edits in this edit. Your edit post (rv. stealth edit that takes out sourced and established mention of lower window grating as well as the' athletic burglar 'edit which is its ostensible target, rv back to Donnino not qualified as article already says,) does not relate to even a single of my edit that you reverted. Let me also clarify that all my edits were properly sourced (or had edit posts) and not stealth. I do think you owe me an apology if it was accidental; or you should have posted your objection on the talk page to clarify your position. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
MoMK
Hope you don't mind this edit.TMCk (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to ask you this earlier: When Follain's book came out you vehemently opposed it based on a review even as to add it to the book section but by now you apparently have bought this book and are using it extensively as source. I didn't buy nor read it but would like to know what you think about its quality/reliability, neutrality etc. if I may ask.TMCk (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The reveiw was misleading IMO. Folain's book is, by and large, an excellent source.Overagainst (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Short and to the point; I like that. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
MoMK, again
Once again I would be appreciated if you would cut out misinterpretation of my comment, taking them out of context by leaving out important parts of my original comment and other misrepresenting ways you choose that seem to have no other purpose than to discredit what I said by presenting them in an extremely misleading way. Either you just don't get it as shown by your ignorance and dismissal of not only my comments or you're acting knowingly in bad faith. Again, change your approach that instead of improvement leads to nothing else than to more problems on the subject's talkpage and article. Just cut it out or learn how to do so before continuing this path.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore: Your walls of text which are often build in a forum like way despite clear rules against such were not appreciated in the past and nor are they now as you were told several times before. Even so a SPA editor, you've been here long enough to have learned how to keep it on subject, short and to the point (and not to misleadingly comment on other editors as pointed out above). If you really want to improve the article stop implementing edits that are disproved of and/or have no consensus. And start listening to other editors even if you don't like what you say.TMCk (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
MoMK (3)
Hi Overagainst. I see that you have effectively reverted my deletion from MoMK of the sentence which stated that Mignini had made accusations of a satanic cult in the Monster of Florence Case. You have helpfully added new references beyond the CBS Crimsider article. Unfortunately though, I read the Italian sources you cited and none of them mention a satanic cult... perhaps you could point me to where you have read this in the Italian articles? Also, you have cited Italian Misplaced Pages as a source, but I do need to point out Misplaced Pages's policy on this (WP:NOTSOURCE). Besides this, the source for the satanism in the Italian article is a book written by the investigating police officer and does not say that Mignini was involved at all, in fact, all the satansim accusations deal with a part of the case Mignini was not involved in. All of the Italian press reports that I have read from the Narducci case say that his theory revolved around a masonic lodge or secret society (as Narducci's father was an admitted member of a masonic lodge) - there is no mention of sex or satanism, as Mignini was investing the murder of Dr Narducci, not the original MoF murders. This reliable Italian media source article summarises Mignini's case in the Narducci murder.
Apologies if I have misunderstood something. It would be helpful if you could point me to an article that deals with the Narducci case which mentions this satanic theory... the only references I find to it seem to be from Preston or this CBS article. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
December 2011 and MoMK
 | Please click the puppets and read. |
...and you might also want to read wp:BRD.
Despite being here for some time now your editing shows that you're still not aware about how WP works. It might be due to ignorance, being a SPA account or else but in any case you're not exempt from our rules to work in a collaborate way.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The thread can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MoMK again..TMCk (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me translate the above: TMCk doesn't want to work in a collaborative way, you get in his way by not doing with the article what he wants, so he tried to trick others into preventing you from editing, but it didn't work. It's classic WP:Civil POV pushing. If he continues with these tactics his behavior is nothing short of harassment. I think at this point he should be banned from posting to your talk page. It's clear he is not after any sort of good faith discussion, merely to make threats. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
dates & times on MoMK
Hello, could you please take more care in date and time formats? I went through the article the other day and cleaned this up asking editors to take note of the MOS guidelines. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that, I appreciate it. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
Your recent editing history at Murder of Meredith Kercher shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Consider this your last warning. You are disruptively longterm editwarring against the consensus on talk. A block is in sight.TMCk (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Appendix: You know your way around wp:3RR very well but you're taking your chances with longterm warring. You must be very familiar with the rules.TMCk (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Overagainst/Danilo Restivo has been moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Danilo Restivo, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!
Pol430 talk to me 12:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus
Consensus is against using primary research as per WP:MEDRS. Also we do not particularly like one sentence sections. And the ref does not support:
Adequate vitamin D may also be associated with healthy hair follicle growth cycles.
But in fact state the opposite. So I am not sure why you returned all this text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Adam Ferguson and referenced wording
I think the first reference in the article was supporting "the father of modern sociology" characterisation? You've removed that and inserted quite another text; is that supported by the same reference? AllyD (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ledes are not supposed to be referenced at all. Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots' Invention of the Modern World is the source for what I am adding. I think it will make people want to read on, which is what ta good lede is suppose to do.Overagainst (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Annabel Chong
We have a reliable source for her real name - the NY Times review of her documentary. That meets the requirement for WP:BLP - it's a clearly public piece of knowledge. Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring at Annabel Chong
Obviously my caution to you was not heard, as I see you have made yet another revert today. Consider this a formal warning. You are in breach of Misplaced Pages's edit warring policy, and you will be blocked if you make another revert along these lines at this article. The discussion at WT:BLP has made it clear that your interpretation of his policy does not have consensus support, therefore is not a shield from behind which you may battle against several editors to retain the version you personally favour. Start a request for comment on the matter if you would like to gain more input, but the edit warring stops now. Resolute 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- If an editor who is an administrator is going to move discussions of a specific issue on an article from the talk page for that article to the Misplaced Pages project page for Biographies of living persons then there may be some danger of confusion as to exactly what is being discussed and where the concensus lies. There is also the problem of missing things, I didn't see your caution. At BLP talk I cited several pieces of guidance from the project page Biographies of living persons in support of my edit and a general point about the real name and other details of a retired living adult industry performer being in an article. It's quite true that no editors completely agreed with my interpretation. However I would point out that didn't just give an interpretation, I cited the actual text of the project page at length and repeatedly, people can go there and see if I have misrepresented the straightforward meaning of the text on the project page discussion at WT:BLP. They can also decide if the project page carries any weight in discussion, and reflects actual practice on Misplaced Pages. Overagainst (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no issue with you pressing your argument, but it is clearly inappropriate for you to be warring on the article itself to enforce your preferred version while a discussion, which is clearly not currently in your favour, is ongoing. I have read your arguments in the discussions both at WT:BLP and the article talk page, but those are immaterial to your edit warring. Continue to make your case, but I stand by my warning. Further reverts will result in a block. Resolute 15:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- In my defence I accepted defeat on the main issue of the removal of the name quite a while ago. That final revert you're complaining about was of an edit on a living person bio tagged page and it had the following edit summary: "WP:MOS, using Vivian Leigh, FA article, as model". Vivian Leigh is long since dead.Overagainst (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no issue with you pressing your argument, but it is clearly inappropriate for you to be warring on the article itself to enforce your preferred version while a discussion, which is clearly not currently in your favour, is ongoing. I have read your arguments in the discussions both at WT:BLP and the article talk page, but those are immaterial to your edit warring. Continue to make your case, but I stand by my warning. Further reverts will result in a block. Resolute 15:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've acted to revert your last edit, which was in clear violation of the consensus at WT:BLP. And as I stated at Talk:Annabel Chong just now regarding the name:
- Now, how it is to be presented within it should be the same as it's done in other biography articles. It doesn't matter if the subject is living or dead, the format is the same. The Vivian Leigh article is a good template to follow for format issues since it's a featured article (from WP:FA: "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.").
As Resolute says, you are on notice - further attempts to remove the name will result in your being blocked immediately. Tabercil (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly Tabercil, another warning from you was both unnecessary and potentially inflammatory given you are their primary opponent in this debate. I also note that you have made your fourth revert as part of this battle, so it would be wise for you to avoid giving the appearance of trying to use your status as an admin to your advantage. It would, in fact, be best if you both stepped away from the name issue for the time being. Resolute 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm cool with that... Tabercil (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly Tabercil, another warning from you was both unnecessary and potentially inflammatory given you are their primary opponent in this debate. I also note that you have made your fourth revert as part of this battle, so it would be wise for you to avoid giving the appearance of trying to use your status as an admin to your advantage. It would, in fact, be best if you both stepped away from the name issue for the time being. Resolute 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit waring on John Giuca's page
I see you have been waring with multiple editors at John Giuca's page and I am asking you to stop making edits. It is inappropriate for you to do so and you are adding slanderous and bias material. We will continue to change your edits back and, as you seem to have this issue with multiple other topics, we have no issue reporting you continuously until you cease. Mdavis2 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- John Giuca may be innocent, but like I said on the article talk page, my understanding is that Misplaced Pages's voice can't be used for statements of opinion. The article was using Misplaced Pages's voice to imply it's obvious that he is innocent and that someone never even tried is guilty; that is a viewpoint. It should be OK to mention many of your points if they are correctly attributed. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You could phrase it 'Lawyers representing Giuca said that ...." . Overagainst (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Everything on there had credible sources, was substantiated by fact, and was properly cited. However, the "facts" as you have put them on there are disputed by multiple people and sources and the fact that they are widely disputed was not included in your edits- which makes them bias. If you felt the issue was specific wording you could have easily made those edits yourself instead of filling the page with slanderous, bias, and incomplete material.
Mdavis2 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Semi-colons
Regarding this, there are many good on-line sources which can tell you how to use them well. The error you keep making, and I keep trying to correct by adding semi-colons, is described at comma splice. --John (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but as that useful link shows there are other ways to correct that error. In my opinion your preferred method seems to result in text with an awful lot of semicolons. Overagainst (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I had to revert a comma you changed to a semicolon just now, at Kercher. Edit summary didn't work for some reason. Comma before 'thereby' followed by a participle. Otherwise great edits! Rothorpe (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Minor edits
Could you please only use the minor edit flag for edits which are truly minor, ie over which no-one could ever disagree? Thank you, --John (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- An edit over which no-one could ever disagree; is there one? The minor edit flag will be rarely seen at all if that criterion is applied.Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, that is the criterion we have agreed to abide by, see Help:Minor edit. --John (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite. 'Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable'. Point taken nonetheless.Overagainst (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, that is the criterion we have agreed to abide by, see Help:Minor edit. --John (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Holloway
A lot of what you are writing isn't even true. Dave Holloway did not get there for two or three days, for some reason he wasn't on the "posse" private flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Van der Sloot kills in Peru
True, but the section you added was separated from that by a paragraph about the discovery of a jawbone that turned out not to be Natalee's. Maybe your addition was in the right place and this section needs to be moved. Britmax (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- As you reverted my addition of the information on the grounds that it was in the wrong section, could you put my addition back in that section please. I have no objection to the para about unidentified remains being moved and taken out of the section or removed from the article, if you wish.Overagainst (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
False edit summaries
Do not make false edit summaries, as you did here. The talk page shows opposition to the change from three separate editors, and you are well aware of that.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- As can be seen here here and here only Montanabw and I had been participating in the discussion about my contention that the 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru section' should not continue to say had pled guilty to the Flores murder in Peru, but omit that he had been convicted and sentenced, at the time that edit summary was made. Perhaps you'll find it less difficult to follow what is happening on the Talk page, and improve your less then perfect comprehension of the English language, if you participated in the discussions that you comment on._Overagainst (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I made no less than three comments in the thread you point at (), and Wehwalt made one. My comments were made three days before your edit. Given that you directly addressed me during the conversation, it's obvious that you read my contributions. It's hard to take your above comment in good faith, as it appears to be intended to deceive casual readers of this conversation.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Pleading guilty" is quite sufficient. If you think it's not, go argue your case at WT:BLP.—Kww(talk". By my way of thinking that and similar remarks were ostensibly complaining the change amounted to excessive wordiness (being already stated). So it was not advancing of an argument to oppose the information being added to the article, as you were saying it was already mentioned in a "quite sufficient' way.
- I made no less than three comments in the thread you point at (), and Wehwalt made one. My comments were made three days before your edit. Given that you directly addressed me during the conversation, it's obvious that you read my contributions. It's hard to take your above comment in good faith, as it appears to be intended to deceive casual readers of this conversation.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- As can be seen here here and here only Montanabw and I had been participating in the discussion about my contention that the 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru section' should not continue to say had pled guilty to the Flores murder in Peru, but omit that he had been convicted and sentenced, at the time that edit summary was made. Perhaps you'll find it less difficult to follow what is happening on the Talk page, and improve your less then perfect comprehension of the English language, if you participated in the discussions that you comment on._Overagainst (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Behind the objections that it was implicit in the guilty plea that he was convicted was a contradictory argument: that mentioning the conviction is a BLP violation on Van der Slooot, because Wehwalt says that same information is a BLP violation, yet he also says it's already in the article through mentioning the guilty plea, as if that is as good as mentioning the conviction (and sentence). So if having it in the 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru 'sub section that Van der Sloot pled guilty is "quite sufficient" for the reader to know that Van der Sloot was convicted of a murder in Peru, it follows the guilty plea information should be removed from the article. It is most certainly not true that a guilty plea to murder necessarily equals a conviction and life sentence. It specifically says in BLP guidance in to avoid mentioning allegations of crime unless there were convictions on those charges. It nowhere says that the reader should be left to to make the presumption that if the article says someone pled guilty on a murder charge then he was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The article is full of instances where Van der Sloot 'confesses' to things (e.g.,selling Natalee as a sex slave) and then retracted his 'confession'. I'm not an expert on the legal system of Peru, but courts can refuse to accept a plea, or reduce charges during a trial and people change pleas to things like temporary insanity. -Overagainst (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, your edit summary was a conscious and intentional lie, as you were completely aware that multiple editors objected, you just considered the objections to be unworthy of your attention. Don't do that. Lying will get you blocked. Quickly.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- It was actually an oversight as I was rushing and searched for the other editors in that discussion using 'find' not realising it wouldn't work; I'll be more careful. However, what I missed was comparatively brief, perhaps because it was opinion without quoting or citing of WP guidance countervailing my own cites. I was looking for rather more substantive contributions to the debate.
- I made no false edit summary, because it accurately described exactly what changes I was making; that is what edit summaries are properly for. The edit summary said it was a revert to Britmax's edit, and that's exactly what it was. I did make an inadvertently inaccurate remark about participation in Talk, intended to stimulate more discussion of the issues there. Anyway, others have used the edit summaries to make remarks similarly, and that kind of thing is never going to set an edit in stone. Please note that it was Britmax's edit which I was supporting so it was 2 against 3. The only time I've been blocked it was due to being tag-teamed by a coven of editors who were trying to keep certain wording about a criminal conviction in the lede as it was, even after the conviction had been overturned. They had consensus, but it did them no good in the end._Overagainst (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, your edit summary was a conscious and intentional lie, as you were completely aware that multiple editors objected, you just considered the objections to be unworthy of your attention. Don't do that. Lying will get you blocked. Quickly.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Behind the objections that it was implicit in the guilty plea that he was convicted was a contradictory argument: that mentioning the conviction is a BLP violation on Van der Slooot, because Wehwalt says that same information is a BLP violation, yet he also says it's already in the article through mentioning the guilty plea, as if that is as good as mentioning the conviction (and sentence). So if having it in the 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru 'sub section that Van der Sloot pled guilty is "quite sufficient" for the reader to know that Van der Sloot was convicted of a murder in Peru, it follows the guilty plea information should be removed from the article. It is most certainly not true that a guilty plea to murder necessarily equals a conviction and life sentence. It specifically says in BLP guidance in to avoid mentioning allegations of crime unless there were convictions on those charges. It nowhere says that the reader should be left to to make the presumption that if the article says someone pled guilty on a murder charge then he was convicted and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The article is full of instances where Van der Sloot 'confesses' to things (e.g.,selling Natalee as a sex slave) and then retracted his 'confession'. I'm not an expert on the legal system of Peru, but courts can refuse to accept a plea, or reduce charges during a trial and people change pleas to things like temporary insanity. -Overagainst (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Force Crater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legs Diamond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Force Crater may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- court"> In New York, the “Supreme Court” is a trial-level court, not the state's highest court. (The highest court in New York is the ], whose members
- 1. Retrieved August 9, 2011, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851–2007). (Document ID: 11838224</ref>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Edalji may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Parsi]] descent, and his mother English . Edalji was a capable student, winning prizes from the , and he became a ] in ], ], in 1898. He wrote the
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Edalji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solicitor-General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Overagainst/Kelly McGonigal
While reviewing Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal, I came across User:Overagainst/Kelly McGonigal. Please consider fleshing this out and moving it into the main encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to H. P. Lovecraft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |Lord Dunsany]], ], ], ], ], [[Friedrich
- heavily criticized by readers of the ailing magazine. Baird was replaced with ], whose writing Lovecraft had criticized. Wright operated the magazine on a business footing and
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kelly McGonigal (2) (October 23)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2).
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Miniapolis 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello! Overagainst, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! |
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2)
I want to apologize for the mixup with Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2) and Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal. See the notes on both pages for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kelly McGonigal (2) (October 28)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2).
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! Miniapolis 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Just letting you know
You shouldn't edit comments that have been replied to, other than minor questions of spelling and whatnot.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I didn't know that.Overagainst (talk)
Quotation of BLP violation redacted
I have redacted your quotation at WP:FAR of Wehwalt's comment regarding who van der Sloot should have "nailed". I have also redacted the original statement in the talk page archives. The comment is a clear BLP violation, and quoting it compounds the original violation by basically republishing the statement. I'm sure you acted in good faith and didn't mean to do that, and I trust you'll understanding my redacting it. I daresay people can get a pretty good sense of Wehwalt's attitude, which is indeed disturbing, from the sentence saying that he finds van der Sloot "nailing" someone a joke. And if they are really interested the quotation will be in the history. I will warn Wehwalt on his talk page. Regards, Neljack (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Since Wehwalt has been reverting me, I have started a thread at the BLP Noticeboard here. Regards, Neljack (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. MastCell 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What is it going to take?
Are you simply going to keep chipping away at the Natalee Holloway article until it conforms to your particular perspective? Is there anything that can be done that would both satisfy you and allow the article to remain neutral?—Kww(talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea how the article is going to look in the future. I am not the one who created a section relying on the Amigoe article, and I don't make the rules on sourcing BLP, or determine how they are interpreted. Overagainst (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's clear that you are finding any policy pretext that you can find to make the article conform to your stated perspective: that Joran murdered Natalee and that all of Beth's actions should be viewed in a positive light because, of course, if Dompig had just paid more attention to Beth he would have found concrete evidence linking him to the crime. That's a perfectly respectable belief: a lot of people share it. It is not, however, a neutral take on the situation, and your efforts to grind away point by point by point are disruptive. It needs to stop. I've made a good faith effort to engage with you, and I'm the only person continuing to do so: all others have been driven away by your incessant repetition of arguments even after they have been refuted, your unwillingness to understand the concept of neutrality, and the transparency of your efforts to bias the article. I've made edits to the article to deal with places where you had valid points, but those have been few and far between.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- So that's my purport. I was wondering.Overagainst (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- "...the Aruban police failed to treat Natalee's disappearance as the work of a murderer, and consequently released a murderer, because Beth's intuition was validated by van der Sloot subsequently committing a murder in Peru". Want me to trawl through your comments and find the half-dozen or so times that you've said similar things? Your statement that occurences in 2010 should make us rewrite descriptions about events in 2005-2009? Your strange belief that all negative feelings that Arubans may have had towards Holloway have certainly disappeared since the Peruvian killing? Your multiple statements that Dompig should feel bad because he didn't listen?—Kww(talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are worried about; despite all my efforts over 6 months I have not been able to accomplish any substantive alteration in the article. I must admit it was wrongheaded to talk about about the mother's intuition; it was more of a logical inference. Van der Sloot's initial denial that he had ever met Natalee, on being confronted by her parents when she had just been missing for a few hours, hardly bespeaks lack of guilty knowledge. Almost immediately (on being told he'd been seen with her) he switched stories and said they had driven her back to the hotel and a black security guard was with her when he last saw her. He came up with a clever story to implicate innocent men (whose names are still front and centre in the '2005 arrests' section along with certain slanderous accusations about their character, despite my protests that it violates BLP). Beth's REAL complaint about Dompig failing to treat the trio as murder suspects is nowhere mentioned, which is deceptive when Dompig publicly said van der Sloot was lying, but police thought Natalee had accidently ODed so he wasn't a killer (I don't know if the cops could have broken someone in the trio down to implicate van der Sloot, the fact is they didn't try in a determined way, because they didn't think any of them were complicit in a murder). In my opinion, there should never have been all that weight on innuendo about alcohol, drugs and sexual promiscuity to support the idea that Natalee consented to everything that happened to her that night. As not even events of 2010 have changed your mind about continuing to put so much weight on the OD theory, let me ask you this: what is it going to take for you stop thinking a NPOV requires us to bring forward so much to support the idea that nothing happened to Natalee that she did not consent to, when we don't know that? Overagainst (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm worried about the amount of time I've spent keeping you from making changes that aren't supported by evidence. Dompig didn't find concrete evidence of murder, nor did the Dutch investigative force, nor did the FBI. Dompig did treat the trio as murder suspects, and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to make the charge. As to the implication that "Natalee consented to everything that happened to her that night", that really isn't in the article. There's no real doubt that Natalee put herself in a dangerous situation, true, and the article is upfront about that. What happened next is unknown to anyone but a very few people, and they aren't telling. JvdS is certainly a liar: his myriad versions about what happened that night cannot all be true at the same time, and the accusations that he faked his own father's voice on recordings in order to implicate his father in the crime appear credible. I think the article is upfront about that. On a personal level, I think it's extremely likely that JvdS committed some kind of crime that night. Under Kingdom law, even if all he did was watch her drown and didn't attempt to rescue her, that's a crime, and the investigators have stated that they believe he did more than that.
- The problems I have with the thrust of your edits are two-fold. First, treating Beth solely as a victim. She certainly is a victim, and my heart goes out to her for that. That said, she isn't the kind of victim that WP:VICTIM is meant to address. This isn't a case of someone writing a detailed article about everything she ever did while pointing at sources about her daughter's disappearance to justify creation of an autobiographical article. Beth placed herself front and center in the publicity, using it as the only leverage she had to keep the investigation going. She's started a foundation, written a book, and worked on a Lifetime movie. She's been accused by others involved in the case of interfering with the investigation in her zeal to see it come to a conclusion. The article confines itself to things relevant to the aftermath of the crime, and doesn't stray afield.
- The second is your conflation of sordid material with the idea that it paints Natalee as a sordid person. Did JvdS state that he had sold her into slavery? He certainly did. Is that accusing Natalee of promiscuity? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Was there an effort to rescue her from a crack house where she was reportedly held captive? Certainly. Does that paint her as an abuser of recreational drugs? Not by any stretch of the imagination.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- You and others have been very successful for several years in keeping it as you want it, and seen off loads of people who tried to alter the article, I'm not going to fare any better. Sorry if I'm wasting your time, though I wonder if your wanting to spend that time on other pages in the same way you do on this one.
- I don't know what you are worried about; despite all my efforts over 6 months I have not been able to accomplish any substantive alteration in the article. I must admit it was wrongheaded to talk about about the mother's intuition; it was more of a logical inference. Van der Sloot's initial denial that he had ever met Natalee, on being confronted by her parents when she had just been missing for a few hours, hardly bespeaks lack of guilty knowledge. Almost immediately (on being told he'd been seen with her) he switched stories and said they had driven her back to the hotel and a black security guard was with her when he last saw her. He came up with a clever story to implicate innocent men (whose names are still front and centre in the '2005 arrests' section along with certain slanderous accusations about their character, despite my protests that it violates BLP). Beth's REAL complaint about Dompig failing to treat the trio as murder suspects is nowhere mentioned, which is deceptive when Dompig publicly said van der Sloot was lying, but police thought Natalee had accidently ODed so he wasn't a killer (I don't know if the cops could have broken someone in the trio down to implicate van der Sloot, the fact is they didn't try in a determined way, because they didn't think any of them were complicit in a murder). In my opinion, there should never have been all that weight on innuendo about alcohol, drugs and sexual promiscuity to support the idea that Natalee consented to everything that happened to her that night. As not even events of 2010 have changed your mind about continuing to put so much weight on the OD theory, let me ask you this: what is it going to take for you stop thinking a NPOV requires us to bring forward so much to support the idea that nothing happened to Natalee that she did not consent to, when we don't know that? Overagainst (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- "...the Aruban police failed to treat Natalee's disappearance as the work of a murderer, and consequently released a murderer, because Beth's intuition was validated by van der Sloot subsequently committing a murder in Peru". Want me to trawl through your comments and find the half-dozen or so times that you've said similar things? Your statement that occurences in 2010 should make us rewrite descriptions about events in 2005-2009? Your strange belief that all negative feelings that Arubans may have had towards Holloway have certainly disappeared since the Peruvian killing? Your multiple statements that Dompig should feel bad because he didn't listen?—Kww(talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- So that's my purport. I was wondering.Overagainst (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's clear that you are finding any policy pretext that you can find to make the article conform to your stated perspective: that Joran murdered Natalee and that all of Beth's actions should be viewed in a positive light because, of course, if Dompig had just paid more attention to Beth he would have found concrete evidence linking him to the crime. That's a perfectly respectable belief: a lot of people share it. It is not, however, a neutral take on the situation, and your efforts to grind away point by point by point are disruptive. It needs to stop. I've made a good faith effort to engage with you, and I'm the only person continuing to do so: all others have been driven away by your incessant repetition of arguments even after they have been refuted, your unwillingness to understand the concept of neutrality, and the transparency of your efforts to bias the article. I've made edits to the article to deal with places where you had valid points, but those have been few and far between.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would be fine to say Beth was interfering with the investigation, if it was made clear that her interfering was with the police investigating the three men with her daughter when she disappeared as though concealing an accidental death was the worst thing they might be guilty of. The article does not make it clear what Natalee's mother was actually complaining about. What is said about Natalee, is similarly selective of what is in the sources. The central problem is WP:CHERRYPICKING. The Amigoe article may represent what some still think, but it's about living people, and you need tertiary sources for stating things about living people that might be challenged. Overagainst (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, while that was Beth's perception, that isn't an undisputed fact either. Dompig's statements are that he did treat it as a murder investigation, and it was only after investigation that he came to the conclusion that he couldn't prove that. After all, the arrests were on the grounds of involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm, hardly the result of "investigating ... as though concealing an accidental death was the worst thing they might be guilty of".—Kww(talk) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Arrest of the trio on suspicion of "involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm" is not incompatible with Dompig and his men believing from the earliest days of the investigation that Natalee had probably died from serious negligence by the trio related to supplying drugs and failing to get medical attention for someone who collapsed; note they were never arrested on suspicion of rape and murder, despite lying to the police and implicating innocent men (a serious offence in most countries). Whether or not it's true that from the begining Dompig conducted the investigation in line with his 2008 statment that "we are not talking about killers here", the fact is Beth Holloway said the Arubans went about the enquiry as if they thought the trio were not killers, yet the article gives a quite diffferent impression of what Beth's contention or complaint was. What is front and centre in the article lede is "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." That is misrepresenting what Natalee Holloway's parents were saying as can be seen in the article where it clearly says: "According to Julia Renfro, U.S.-born editor of the Aruban tourist-oriented newspaper, Aruba Today, who befriended Twitty in the early days of the investigation ... within a couple of days, after fixing responsibility on Joran van der Sloot, (Beth) Twittywas telling TV interviewers that she knew her daughter had been gang-raped and murdered".". So Holloway's family knew she was gone forever and were not making the unreasonable demand thoughout the investigation that Aruban authorities should find their daughter. I think it would be far more encyclopedic and accurate for the lede to say 'Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her". Overagainst (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- A sentence like "Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her" would not be a problem.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- If that proposed text were added I will be satisfied and stop chipping.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- A sentence like "Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her" would not be a problem.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Arrest of the trio on suspicion of "involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm" is not incompatible with Dompig and his men believing from the earliest days of the investigation that Natalee had probably died from serious negligence by the trio related to supplying drugs and failing to get medical attention for someone who collapsed; note they were never arrested on suspicion of rape and murder, despite lying to the police and implicating innocent men (a serious offence in most countries). Whether or not it's true that from the begining Dompig conducted the investigation in line with his 2008 statment that "we are not talking about killers here", the fact is Beth Holloway said the Arubans went about the enquiry as if they thought the trio were not killers, yet the article gives a quite diffferent impression of what Beth's contention or complaint was. What is front and centre in the article lede is "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." That is misrepresenting what Natalee Holloway's parents were saying as can be seen in the article where it clearly says: "According to Julia Renfro, U.S.-born editor of the Aruban tourist-oriented newspaper, Aruba Today, who befriended Twitty in the early days of the investigation ... within a couple of days, after fixing responsibility on Joran van der Sloot, (Beth) Twittywas telling TV interviewers that she knew her daughter had been gang-raped and murdered".". So Holloway's family knew she was gone forever and were not making the unreasonable demand thoughout the investigation that Aruban authorities should find their daughter. I think it would be far more encyclopedic and accurate for the lede to say 'Aruban police were criticised by Holloway's parents for what they perceived as a lack of rigour in the investigation and questioning of the three men last seen with her". Overagainst (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, while that was Beth's perception, that isn't an undisputed fact either. Dompig's statements are that he did treat it as a murder investigation, and it was only after investigation that he came to the conclusion that he couldn't prove that. After all, the arrests were on the grounds of involuntary manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm, hardly the result of "investigating ... as though concealing an accidental death was the worst thing they might be guilty of".—Kww(talk) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would be fine to say Beth was interfering with the investigation, if it was made clear that her interfering was with the police investigating the three men with her daughter when she disappeared as though concealing an accidental death was the worst thing they might be guilty of. The article does not make it clear what Natalee's mother was actually complaining about. What is said about Natalee, is similarly selective of what is in the sources. The central problem is WP:CHERRYPICKING. The Amigoe article may represent what some still think, but it's about living people, and you need tertiary sources for stating things about living people that might be challenged. Overagainst (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Kercher
Can you inspect the Kercher talk page please?Super48paul (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)