User talk:Overagainst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


March 2010[edit]

Hello, Overagainst! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Medical articles[edit]


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) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Overagainst. You have new messages at WLU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vitamin D[edit]

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[edit]

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 [1].

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)

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)

Another reminder[edit]

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[edit]

See here

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)


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 (chat!) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand you think that you are defending the Wikipedia 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 (chat!) 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. Wikipedia 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 (chat!) 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)

Warning: edit warring[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)


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[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Colin°Talk 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°Talk 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)

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[edit]

Wondering if we could agree on two things for starters

  1. Use review articles and the IoM report per WP:MEDRS
  2. 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)

[Your edit][edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 Wikipedia as a source, but I do need to point out Wikipedia'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[edit]

...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 Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)
Bad time format.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

Danilo Restivo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
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 Wikipedia. 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Pol430 talk to me 12:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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.[1]

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)

  1. ^ Amor, KT; Rashid, RM; Mirmirani, P (2010). "Does D matter? The role of vitamin D in hair disorders and hair follicle cycling". Dermatology online journal 16 (2): 3. PMID 20178699. 

Adam Ferguson and referenced wording[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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'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)

Stop edit waring on John Giuca's page[edit]

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 Wikipedia's voice can't be used for statements of opinion. The article was using Wikipedia'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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ([2][3][4]), 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.
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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 [[New York Court of Appeals|Court of Appeals]], 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[edit]

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 [[Law Society], and he became a [[solicitor]] in [[Birmingham]], [[England]], in 1898. He wrote the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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[edit]

While reviewing Wikipedia 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[edit]

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]], [[Algernon Blackwood]], [[Arthur Machen]], [[A. Merritt]], [[Oswald Spengler]], [[Friedrich
  • heavily criticized by readers of the ailing magazine. Baird was replaced with [Farnsworth Wright]], 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)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Teahouse logo
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 Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2)[edit]

I want to apologize for the mixup with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelly McGonigal (2) and Wikipedia 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)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Just letting you know[edit]

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[edit]

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.[5] Regards, Neljack (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. MastCell Talk 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What is it going to take?[edit]

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.
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".[163]". 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)
The nature of the criticism isn't particularly contentious: while it isn't a given that the investigation was unsound, it is a given that the Twittys believed it was unsound. Because of that, I used a more direct voice: 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that you have repetitively gone back on your word and are continuing to chip away at the article. I have repaired the material to any reasonable editor's satisfaction. You've continued to edit-war the tag into existence after the repair and then had the gall to claim that since no one had addressed the tag it was still valid. I've addressed every valid concern that you had. Stop this.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Can you inspect the Kercher talk page please?Super48paul (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Secondary" sources[edit]

The Amigoe is a secondary source, reporting on statements by the primary sources. How can you justify that tag?—Kww(talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The tag I reverted to was put there months ago by George Ho, after he asked at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard read discussion here. The independent opinion from FreeRangeFrog: "I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage." Tag says 'Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources' so a really good secondary source is being asked for. IMO some of the assertions in section are dubious and one source (as current ref) for those assertions has to be an unquestioned secondary. I think it is stretching to say Amigoe is secondary, and though a weak secondary at best it is sole source reffed for a section with certain possible contentious information about living people. Moreover the section contains BLP matters which seems to be there for their own sake, as section is is about early events for some reason not mentioned until way down the page under the main heading 'Criticism of the investigation'.
The tagged section currently says "The Amigoe provided an independent evaluation of the interviews done in preparation for the film. During the interviews, Renfro and Dompig repeated complaints that Aruban authorities had been systematically obstructed in their investigation by the FBI and other American authorities. They also indicate that within a day of Holloway being declared missing, a medjet, unauthorized by Aruban authorities, had arrived on Aruba and had remained for several days. They further indicate that, while the purpose of the medjet was not even known to its crew and medical personnel, it was in fact to spirit Holloway off the island if she were found. Holloway's departure was to be covert and without notice to local authorities.[190]"
Dubious 1. Would a pilot really try to land a jet plane without any authorisation, on the face of it we seem to be saying Aruba airport or air traffic control didn't know about the landing, or notice the plane parked on their airport. Clearly there was some official permission for, and knowledge of the medjet, but that is not what The Amigoe section alleges, and The Amigoe is being given as the source for the information.
Dubious 2. Considering the massive contingent of journalists on the spot by the time the medjet arrived 'spiriting Holloway off the island' (ie clandestinely) would surely have been been impossible.
Dubious 3. Unlikely the Twittys told Renfro Dompig or anyone else what the purpose of the medjet was in a way that characterised it as something clandestine and hence shady. The Twitty's may have said they had the intention of leaving Aruba immediately in the medjet with their daughter if she was found; but either interviewees who served as the informants or the writers of the Amigoe article conveyed the information in opiniony judgmental phrasing. The tone of the section is inappropriate. Without the POV tone it's not really very significant that the Twittys were going to head home immediately if Natalee was found, is it? So the other tag by George Ho (one I didn't revert removal of) which expressed concern about 'undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole' was quite in order too.Overagainst (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
George's tag was simply in response to you having raised a concern (George is "helpful" that way: he follows arguments and supplies tags without much regard to whether he has an opinion). However one feels about that, the tag is simply false: the Amigoe is acting as a secondary source with regard to both the documentary and the interviews, not a primary, and the tag that you continually insist on restoring says that the section relies on primary sources. It does not.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It's arguable, but to every argument there is a countervailing one. Is it really a matter of counting WP:LINKSINACHAIN, and obvious an newspaper account of raw interviews done by a documentary maker is not WP:PRIMARYNEWS? The Amigoe article is the source for a section called 'Amigoe article' and seems to reproduces the weight and tone of a piece that sets out its stall in the title as as "the other side", which doesn't sound very compatible with BLP considerations.
Perhaps George Ho does not like wasting as much of his time and substance on such inconclusive back and forth arguments as I seem to end up doing. As I recall he went to BLP noticeboard and got an independent opinion (from Free Range Frog) about whether that section on the Amigoe article is out of line with BLP policy and guidlines, before he slapped a tag on it.Overagainst (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Secondary is very much a "links in a chain" state. The Amigoe is reporting on statements made by the primary source, and is a secondary source. The interviews are also used by Gielen, and the interviewees made similar statements to Vanity Fair. George's comment was "Someone in the talk page [i.e Overagainst] said that such information must be either reworded, additionally referenced, or deleted. I wonder if that's the case." FreeRangeFrog's argument was simply wrong, and immediately refuted. The tag is false. Please stop putting the tag back on. It may have had some validity originally, but I've rewritten the section to address every valid objection to its content.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYNEWS"These kinds of media reports are primary sources: Analytical reports... The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information." If you fall out with me, and I then say something about you "in interviews done in preparation for" a documentary about your behavior, and a newspaper allowed access to those interviews uses what I said about in the interview to source a story about you, the newspaper may be a secondary source in some weak sense, (although it must not be forgotten a source can be secondary and still insufficient for possible contentious BLP). I just don't think the way Amigoe's reporting of what Arubans said about the Twittys in interviews done for, but not appearing, in a documentary qualify as a good source for BLP, unless you can come up with some non news sources about the Amigoe article to show it has notability enough for a section called 'Amigoe article' and referenced to same. Those things the Amigoe article section is saying about the Twittys which are not non-controversial and not in Vanity Fair are a problem for BLP sourcing according to the independent opinion from the noticeboard sought before the tag was added. I have to say the Amigoe article, not VF, is given as the source for 5.1 a sub section called Amigoe article that introduces new information (including assertions from the preparatory interviews that may not be in the documentary) stated as as fact ("in fact") well down the page and in the context of main section 5 that has quite a bit more about the Twittys. As does Section 4 and 6. The Amigoe article subsection is only egregious for the sourcing, there are whole main sections (4, 5 and 6) with disproportional weight on 'the other side' of the case in relation to the Twittys. Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
So I take it you will be satisfied when I use the documentary itself as an additional source for the interviews? The interviews were, in fact, used by Gielen. The Amigoe, being an impeccably reliable and dispassionate source, was originally viewed as a better source for describing the interviews than the documentary, as it provided a secondary review for the contents of the documentary and the material that went into it. Incidentally, your use of WP:PRIMARYNEWS is pretty far off the mark: the coverage described there has nothing to do with the Amigoe's coverage of the disappearance.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"The interviews were, in fact, used ", well it says they were done "in preparation for the film". Whether or not they appeared in the docu, I think the interviewee sources being drawn on for the aforementioned dubious assertions are claiming knowledge of events which it's unreasonable to believe happened as in the way they say. Just because someone said they knew something, and there was a documentary which had a single newpaper article taking it seriously; that does not mean that newpaper 'Analytical report' passes muster as a secondary source for putting those assertions in the article, especially as they are BLP that might be challenged. If the Amigoe article section is rock solid, why is it by itself way down the page and not intergrated into the account of the events given early on the page? IMO it's because it gets petty far out on a limb with BLP conspiracy theoryish assertions. I think it is reasonable to ask for some really good secondary or tertiary sourcing beyond the Amigoe article and documentary interviews themselves for such assertions. All kinds of off the wall stuff could be inserted into Wikipedia if a newspaper's analysis (titled 'the other side') of interviews in a documentary amounted to a sufficient source for a section on the newspaper article. Overagainst (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Advising mediation[edit]

I see your ongoing conflict with Kww about disappearance of Natalee Holloway in many venues. I realize your good-faith comments about the matter, but bickering and edit warring must stop now. File a report at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I want to file it, but I wasn't participating in your battles. I was just kind about the dispute. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much standard user talk page back and forth as far as I can see. Moreover it was productive as it gave me the impetus to study the article more closely and discover that it provided the basis of a suggestion Wehwalt and Kww were happy to see incorporated into the lede. This was the first substantive change I had been responsible for in several months of trying. Following the aforementioned change to the lede (clarifying the nature of the Twittys' complaint) being implemented, I had withdrawn from further chipping at the article even though I was not happy about it; how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The above section discussion is about a older tag which predated me saying I would stop chipping. I didn't put the tag on but reverted to because it seems to me it was supported by an independent opinion (from FreeRangeFrog) at BLP noticeboard, which by my way of thinking tips the balance for keeping a tag even if those most concerned with the page object. I didn't revert removal of a new tag (on inappropriate weight). Overagainst (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon

Use Preview button[edit]

Warning icon Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Amanda Knox , it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Frze > talk 19:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been doing that, sorry. I'll be sure to do that from now on. Thanks for mentioning it.Overagainst (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sex at Dawn 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:
  • relatively promiscuous, and paternity was not a concern, in a similar way to the mating system of [[Bonobo]s. According to the book, sexual interactions strengthened the bond of trust in the groups;
  • young mate with many childbearing years ahead and no current children to drain his resources. b) She looks for signs of wealth (or at least prospects of future wealth), social status, physical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

sex at dawn[edit]

hi, in general i like the changes you've made to the lead, but I think you're a bit white washing the actual academic reaction. The critics haven't just been "critical" of the theory. THey've been outright scathing, and alleged ulterior motives for the book. I don't think we can remove that from the lead. Unless you object, I'll re-insert a bit about that. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alleging ulterior motives is not the kind of criticism for an encyclopedic article I think we should leave in That bit i took out is rather argumentative and confusingly back and forth for a lede. I would would point out that the lede mentioning criticisms so prominently is really giving them a lot o' weight already. Summary style is just to say what the main objections are, without digs at the authors' motivation, even if these have been made elsewhere they are not an encyclopedic kind of criticism.Overagainst (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't wikipedia just supposed to reflect what reliable third parties have said about a topic? Isn't the whole point that it reflects what has been said rather than some sort of platonic ideal of what we think they should say? If academic reviews have said that there's an ulterior motive, I don't see why we should keep that out of the article, and hence out of the lead. Is there a specific policy against "unpleasant" discussion? I'm genuinely asking, as I may not know wiki policy inside and out, but my guiding policy has always been that an article should roughly proportionately reflect what reliable sources have said about the topic. In this case much of the commentary has been negative, so it is not out of line for much of the article to reflect that, and hence for the lead to reflect that overall trend. However, if there's a policy that says negative commentary should be minimized out of concern for fair presentation I will defer. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You have got the lead ending "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative and argue that humans have a history that involves more monogamy than Sex at Dawn acknowledges, that the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda.[1][2][3]"
By my way of thinking the above is a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone". Overagainst (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, but the fact is that all academic commentaries on the book have been negative (at least as far as I know. Happy if you can find others). Wikipedia aims, according to WP:NPOV to be written by "critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." If every single source has a largely negative opinion, isn't it a violation of NPOV not to report that? Trying to create a false balance, simply because it doesn't seem impartial seems to go against NPOV policy to me. We can reformulate the wording if you think the tone is too harsh, but the content is undisputed in academic circles so far as I know. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Peregrine981 here. I'm reverting Overagainst's changes and have started a discussion for this on the article talk page and hope we can settle this there.Pengortm (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if an academic critic has indulged in speculating about authors' motives, that still falls under the NPOV ruberic. That is why the following has to go: "and the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda." Also, it's misleading to say "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative" without specifying what that amounts to, as there have not been a substantial number of what could be called scientists (academics) who reviewed the book. Ryan M. Ellsworth, David Barash. Saxon is not an academic.Overagainst (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "David Camm". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


This is a neutral notice to someone who has commented at Talk:Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Robert DiBernardo article[edit]

I see that you've copied and pasted a good amount of what I wrote for the Geraldine Ferraro article into the Robert DiBernardo article. This is problematic at several levels.

First, it's rarely a good idea to do that much copying; it's better for one article to refer to the other, with the {{Main}} template or something similar.

Second, much of what you copied refers to Ferraro's issues with her and her husband's financials statements and tax returns and Congressional disclosure statements. There were separate issues which were unrelated to the issue of the pornographer (DiBernardo) renting space in one of her husband's buildings. It is a mistake to mix the two issues together like this.

Third, while yes, there were a few stories in 1984 about Zaccaro and DiBernardo, such as this one, in general, most of the press didn't really delve into these allegations. As this passage from the book Women Politicians and the Media indicates, major press outlets deliberately walked away from it. Thus your copying of the material dealing with Mondale-Ferraro's poll numbers, election returns, etc. is out of place in this article.

As it happened, the Zaccaro and DiBernardo story was much more of an issue in her 1992 Senate primary campaign. See, for example, this New York Times search for <Ferraro DiBernardo> , where you find 14 stories, all from 1992 and none from 1984.

Fourth, what is your source for "Her husband's business relationship with the notorious pornographer and organized crime figure DiBernardo ended the debate during the 1984 vice-presidential debate." This is the transcript of that debate; there is nothing in it about DiBernardo or pornography, just the general issues of her finances, her husband's tax filings, etc.

Fifth, what is your source for "There were also allegations of $350,000 in campaign funds having been being funneled to Ferraro through DiBernardo"? Are you sure you're not confusing this with the 1992 Senate primary, when per this New York Times story, Liz Holtzman ran ads saying that Ferraro and Zaccaro had taken more than $300,000 in rent from DiBernardo?

In sum, you need to be a lot more careful about this article. You need to remove the extraneous material unrelated to DiBernardo and give better sourcing and context for the rest. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

One , OK, though am not aware that a referring to a main article is generally used to substitute for an account drawing on that main article that is relevant to the page being edited.
Two, Much of DB's notability derived from the attention he got as a result of renting an office (which was used as his warehouse by some accounts) from Geraldine Ferraro's husband. However and:-
Three, there is a ref that DB was notorious enough that it immediately attracted comment (DB article ref 1) when it became known during the VP campaign (which was Ferraro's high water mark in politics and what much of her notability, as well as DB's, derived from). It was alluded to, if not explicitly, by the questioning about tax filings about her and her husband, and GF's NYT obit says that quite clearly. At the GF article I was trying to emphasise her being targeted because she gave Mondale a boost.
Four, not sure which article's text I added you are referring to here, but DB's says the connection was damaging and I think it was. DB was around at the time of she was on Mondale's ticket. And the connection to GF's husband focused attention on DB, so highly relevant to his article.
Fifth, ref 2. But it's, as I did make clear, for there being a mere allegation to that effect. I will maybe remove that; I agree it should definitely be toned right down.
IMO GF article could use some more emphasis on Geraldine Ferraro's feisty style and it being muted in the VP debate, but I'll leave the GF page alone from now on. I have no problem with you editing the DB page in line with what you have been saying, though I would prefer no refs are removed. Overagainst (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I owe you a partial apology - I didn't look at the article history carefully enough and I thought that besides adding the Ferraro/Zaccaro material to the lead in the DiBernardo article, you had also added all the material in "National attention" section, when in fact that had been added way back in 2009 by an IP address. I see your most recent changes to that article, and they have made it better, but I still think the article overstates the damage the Zaccaro/DiBernardo connection did to Ferraro in 1984 and understates the damage it did to her in 1992. I also don't think this sentence is correct: "Their separately filed tax returns revealed Zaccaro had rented business premises to DiBernardo." I think that was discovered separately, by people examining public buildings records. In any case, I don't intend to make any changes to that article myself as I don't know anything about DiBernardo. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You don't miss much, and seem to home in on exactly where I, ahem, stretch the refs. I'll take that out. From what I can gather the actual damage it did to her in 1992 was mainly due to her saying that her husband had never met DiBernardo, which got contradicted by police surveillance reports of them being seen together. I don't know how notable that rates next to being on the Mondale ticket for VP, and DiBernardo hurting her there if only as a reason for the media to keep the tax returns in the public eye and draw attention to her wealth. So there was nothing really there in 84 in regards to illegal or questionable activities or incorrect statements about DiBernardo, but she was doing good until her finances began to dog her. So for the DB page it stresses that DB affected the 84 presidential campaign, even though it was indirectly and tangentially.Overagainst (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A good NYT article from the 1992 blow up of Ferraro troubles and the saga of DB's leasing of 200 Lafayette Street which are described elsewhere as a giant warehouse. NYT, August 23, 1992, Questions Facing the Front-Runner. BTW Zaccaro's office for his real estate business was apparently also on Lafayette Street.Overagainst (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Age of Porn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deep Throat (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) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vincent Drucci 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:
  • parentage, [[Samuel Morton]] who was from a Jewish background, and the German Albert Kachellek.(<ref>{{cite book|title=American Mafia: Chicago: True Stories of Families Who Made Windy City

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Very impressed by the work you've done, but I'm kinda curious if you have any books on Capone or if you're just working off Google Books. I have Capone: The Man and The Era, so I might be able to pitch in a little and fill in more refs, but that's all I have. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Al Capone 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:
  • those involved in the jailing of Capone portrayed it as having dealt a fatal blow to the cit'y [[organized crime] syndicate. But, far from being smashed the [[Chicago Outfit]] continued, without

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for User:Overagainst[edit]

Title says it all: WP:ANI#Topic ban requested for User:Overagainst.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A strange reaction[edit]

You actually want to be topic banned? I removed the edit by a sockpuppet that imposed it, but you restored the topic ban for some reason.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your edit summary didn't make it obvious what you did. I assumed it was a random bored person putting a nuisance message and was trying to see what it said, which was difficult as I am experiencing some connection problems (not just on wikipedia). I certainly didn't realise that there could be unauthorised topic bans, or that anyone with that level of technical knowledge would be interested in me.Overagainst (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it again. It's someone angry at me, not you. He wanted to see whether I would still revert a sock if the sock did things I wanted to have happen. He found out that I will.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry for the extra work. Whoever it was used the title of a 2010 fictionalised account of the disappearance that was along the same lines as the 2008 documentary I'm animadverting; made me feel important, for a while.Overagainst (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Lee Lucas 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:
  • >{{cite web|url= |title=[06-24-98&#93; Michael A. Kroll, Condemned in Texas&nbsp;— When Innocence Doesn't Matter |
  • December 2012|date=2003-05-27|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=9780470857946|pages=557–}}</ref>) although he later recanted the confessions. He received a death sentence for the murder of an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Napoleon Chagnon 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:
  • is-their-argument#wrangham NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT:An Edge Special Event]</ref>]].<ref name=contro>{{cite web |last=Eakin |first=Emily |title=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Lee Lucas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers. 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) 09:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Vit D[edit]

Do not remove well sourced contyent without clear consensus. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no single reliable source, that's what makes it synth. And it's giving dosage medical advice for pregnant women, which is egregious.Overagainst (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Vitamin D shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —WOFall (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Sock[edit]

My edit at the at the Bonobo article here was sourced to an article by the leading expert on bonobos Frans de Waal. I have been on Talk:Sex at Dawn here where I have been discussing the thesis of the book Sex at Dawn and pointing up that the introduction says cultural repression of sexual expression results in pedophilla. ("ritual" institutionalised sexual abuse by Catholic priests); but also that bonobo behaviour is quite similar to what is natural for humans.

So in the view of the authors of Sex At Dawn pedophillia would be less common if sexual morality was more like what he supposes the arrangements among ancestral foraging tribes were, and Sex at Dawn says our ancestors peaceful life was like the free and easy sex among bonobos described by De Waal. But Sex at dawn doesn't mention the adult /infant sex among bonobos, which Frans de Waal has documented. Thge 'Behaviour' section makes clear "some have disputed Frans de Waal's characterisation of bonobos, pointing out that he studied them in captivity.[35]". Which sounds quite likely to me as people act weirdly when locked up. While Frans de Waal may have some funny ideas he is the primatologist often cited for the the species being the 'make love not war' ape; people ought to know the whole story. I added to the lede that The primatologist often cited for the peaceful nature of bonobos has never studied them in the wild. so I was not pushing his views, quite the opposite.

So basically I was preparing the ground for an edit at Sex at Dawn and casting doubt on the thesis of the book. The bonobo edit was reliably sourced to an article by Frans de Waal, an acknowledged expert on bonobos (in captivity) and if there was any implied comparison to humans it was deWall making it. I can understand if someone doesn't want that particular aspect of bonobo behaviour mentioned. I thought it belonged in there.

I was not equating non-human animal sexual behavior with pedophilia, User:Flyer22. As should have been obvious from a close reading of what I was talking about on Talk:Sex at Dawn, I started off trying say that the author of Sex at Dawn inclined to that, but it abandoned the idea. Then I took the tack that the thesis of the book Sex at Dawn was ignoring some facts about bonobos. I was pointing out the contradictions in that book equating bonobo behaviour with good human behaviour free of shame and culture while ignoring what bonobos do is quite similar to the human perverts Sex at Dawn says are caused by cultural repression of free sexual expression. Now go to here and you like anyone else can see the aforementioned is a correct characterisation, and that I was not arguing what Flyer 22 said I was. _Overagainst (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"I decided to delve into the Overagainst account history, and what I found was more similarities to the Pass a Method account, though Overagainst usually capitalizes his posts and makes long arguments; the long arguments aspect is uncharacteristic of Pass a Method, but I cannot shake the feeling that Overagainst is Pass a Method"

The rest of your arguments are crapola. Hardly any of my many many edits to Giulio Andreotti (former the Italian prime minister concerned Islam, I spent a vast amount of time on that and other Italian crime related articles Like Murder of Meridith Kercher and Giovanni Falcone, Danilo Restivo), how on earth are they similar to the Murder of Lee Rigby or Islamic articles? I do a lot of crime articles TOP TO BOTTOM as can be seen, NOT just lede, and recently one about pornogrphy. I have been at Talk:Sex at Dawn and made an edit at Bonobo.

"Pass a Method, as noted above, often focuses on leads, usually using British spelling for "lead"...So does Overagainst." Maybe thats because I'm in Britain. A couple of editors with similar 'lede wording' edit summaries in Britain is apparently considered too much of a coincidence, as if the UK was Toad Suck, Arkansas.

You have been overdoing it User:Flyer22, you need a rest.Overagainst (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst, there is no obligation to inform a suspected WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Sockpuppet investigation that involves him or her. Furthermore, with WP:Echo, an editor is (usually) pinged to a discussion when his or her username is linked. How is it that you were not pinged to the discussion? And how is it that you were not aware of the investigation after I provided the link to it at Talk:Sex at Dawn? You keep changing your comments about this matter, such as here, here, here, here and here, so, hopefully, there is not a WP:Edit conflict while I am responding here in this moment (I've readjusted my reply a few times because of your post changes).
I did not state that you equate human animal sexual behavior with pedophilia; I stated that an edit you made to the Bonobo article does. It does. And as for it being something that needed to be mentioned there, what you added is missing important context and views from other primatologists. For example, your edit makes it seem that all adult male Bonobos engage in sexual activity with Bonobo infants. I also stated, "Pass a Method is interested in the idea that child sexual abuse perhaps does not negatively affect children, especially the idea that boys are less traumatically affected by sexual abuse than girls are; for example, if the person who perpetrated the sexual activity on the boy is a woman. ... Overagainst is also interested in the topic." I did not state that you believe that child sexual abuse perhaps does not negatively affect children or boys are less traumatically affected by sexual abuse than girls are; I stated that you are interested in the topic. If you are not interested in the topic, despite bringing it up in the way that you did at Talk:Sex at Dawn, then I am wrong. I also knew that you were arguing from specific authors' viewpoints.
I did not state that you edit Islamic articles; I stated you are interested in Islamic material, and pointed to an aspect related to Islam. If you are not interested in Islamic material, then I am wrong.
As for you being guilty of being Pass a Method's WP:Sockpuppet: As you noted, I clearly indicated in the investigation that you might not be Pass a Method. As recently as here, I stated, "Still, I have my doubts about Overagainst, at least when it comes to him being a WP:Sockpuppet of Pass a Method; this is due to the way he writes (his lengthy posts; the general way he expresses his points), which I acknowledged above. I have no doubt that ArordineriiiUkhtt is a WP:Sockpuppet." So, really, out of these three accounts, I am only 100% convinced that GoGatorMeds and ArordineriiiUkhtt are WP:Sockpuppets. Editing the exact same articles is not always what gets a WP:Sockpuppet caught. GoGatorMeds only edited one article that Pass a Method edited, and the talk page of an article that Pass a Method edited, and yet GoGatorMeds is undoubtedly Pass a Method. Pass a Method has tried to change his editing style with different accounts, but I can always recognize it. Your editing style, being so different, threw me off; and again, I acknowledged that. I was surprised that Mike V indefinitely blocked you, given the doubts I expressed about you being Pass a Method (then again, I did state that my suspicion of you being Pass a Method was very high; this suspicion was exacerbated by you not defending yourself regarding the WP:Sockpuppet case). And given that DeltaQuad stated in the investigation, "@Mike V:, I checked the two you recommended, one is editing off a webhost, the other is editing from the same country as Pass a Method. No other overlap on the CU side.", it seems that you are the one "editing from the same country as Pass a Method," and GoGatorMeds was using a webhost/WP:Proxy to block being identified as Pass a Method. If that's the case, and DeltaQuad found no other data connecting you to Pass a Method, then my doubts that you are Pass a Method have declined even further. Just by the way you have argued your case here on your talk page, I am barely convinced that you are Pass a Method. So I support you being unblocked, considering that it's very likely you were wrongly blocked as a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet. I will note this in the WP:Sockpuppet investigation.
In the investigation, I also obviously asked DoRD, Ponyo, Amalthea and Alison to weigh in on this case, but they have yet to do so thus far.
As for the "rest of [my arguments about you being] crapola," and that I have "been overdoing it" and "need a rest," some of your edits (as is clear to me and others) have similarities to Pass a Method's editing (including your focus on conciseness, except for posts being concise). Again, those similarities don't have to be exact. And I was not going to disregard these similarities in the investigation that was primarily meant to be about GoGatorMeds (though I left the conciseness matter out); that investigation was only going to be about GoGatorMeds until I saw you and the others. I apologize if I have wrongly accused you, which it seems that I have. And I have no issue with you badmouthing me for it on Wikipedia or via email with others. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 :I didn't have a working email facility on Wikipedia until this morning, so I didn't get it, but judging by it being from Count Iblis, it was about vitamin D, not you. Well the wording of the title of that De wall article which I had as a ref suggests that he has some weird ideas about equating, but the text added to the bonobo page really concerned the bonobos. 'Conciseness', thanks I have never been accused of that before.Overagainst (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
By conciseness, I mean, for example, your shortening the lead of the Bonobo article and what you stated at WP:MED about conciseness. Similar to Pass a Method, GoGatorMeds was often focused on conciseness. But if conciseness is not a big thing for you, I stand corrected again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Apart from religion, which I don't think I've done anything on, there are quite a lot of similarities in categories of subject matter. I suppose, though, that a type of person is drawn to certain subjects, and the edits have some similarities because both editors are a certain type of person. I imagine your surprise at how readily your suspicions got acted on is because you have earned quite a reputation for doing good work, and your word counts for more than you realise.Overagainst (talk)

Still not sock[edit]

Mike V I was not aware of any discussion and got banned out of the blue. User:Flyer22 feels free to make disgusting allegations of extreme seriousness with loosely argued speculation, and then reaches incorrect conclusions. What is the procedure to complain about the editors responsible?_Overagainst (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There are times people make mistakes. This seems to maybe be one of them. If you had been a sock and knew the investigation was taking place, there is a very real chance you might have quickly created dozens or hundreds of new accounts to keep doing the problematic things the sockpuppeteers generally got sanctioned for in the first place. Pass a Method, the person you were thought to be, is perhaps bright enough to effectively game the system and IMO maybe self-absorbed enough to keep trying indefinitely. Flyer knows about people jumping to conclusions on this matter personally, and like she said you weren't the primary suspect. The thing to do in these cases is ask for the block to be lifted, which you've done, realize we're all, including Flyer and Mike, humans who make mistakes, which I hope you already knew actually, and try not to carry a grudge about it for too long.John Carter (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was fizzing when I wrote that about complaining (wehich I tried to take it off earlier but made a mess of it somehow). As you say, I should have just assumed good faith and asked for the block to be lifted. I tend to make a lot of edits before I get things clear in my mind.Overagainst (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Your reaction was completely understandable; I've been ticked off at being blocked and let that frustration show (on my talk page) while blocked; see my most recent block/blow up here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Overagainst (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason: There is a common use of 'lede wording' in edit summaries to connect me to the socking editor. That and that I am in Britain. In the four and a half years have been on Wikipedia I have made 11,000 edits, yet Flyer 22 did not, can not, cite a single instance of me editing a page that the sockmaster Pass a Method has edited. NOT ONE. Flyer 22 admits I have a totally different style inasmuch as I capitalise and write long arguments. Flyer 22 repeatedly says 'Overagainst is also interested in the topic.' These topics are not edits at the same page they are categories of articles as wide as "health", "evolution", sex. Flyer 22 gets specific sometimes; it is simply false that I have edited Islam articles. An article I virtually wrote about Giulio Andreotti is supposed to show I have edited Islamic related articles! Flyer 22 says the Methedith Kercher case is like the Lee Rigby article. These parallels are absurd. As far as I can see, and contrary to what was said on User:Flyer22's Talk, Flyer 22 DID NOT INFORM ME that I was suspected of being a sockpuppet. What Flyer22 did was come in here in the middle of a discussion using the the word 'Indeed' as if agreeing with a point just made, but Flyer22 was off on a tangent to what was being discussed: "Indeed, equating pedophilia (a mental matter) that is independent of child sexual abuse with non-human animal sexual behavior and evolution is WP:Fringe. See, for example, this discussion: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Inclusion RFC. Overagainst's arguments sound similar to another editor's arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2014 ". As anyone who reads the discussion can see for themselves, what Flyer22 took to be my view was actually what I was trying to trying to pin on Sex at Dawn's author (because it is discreditable obviously). The edit to bonobo was preparing the ground for an edit at Sex at Dawn, to discredit Sex at Dawns thesis of healthy human sexuality being like that of bonobos. It was reliably sourced to an article by Frans de Waal, an acknowledged expert on bonobos (but only in captivity, as I added to lede).

Accept reason:

Unblock granted. Mike VTalk 16:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
In the section immediately above this one, I've supported Overagainst being unblocked. Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I support the lifting of the block as well.John Carter (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, Overagainst, you were not banned. See WP:Block and WP:Ban. It takes a lot more to get someone banned. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised how little it took (from you) to get it imposed. As you may have noticed I am not knowledgable on procedures of that kind.Overagainst (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Flyer22, "For example, your edit makes it seem that all adult male Bonobos engage in sexual activity with Bonobo infants." Doubtless there is much to be discovered about bonobos in their natural habitat. But it does seem to be common enough (in captivity) that it is rather frequently observed. And I have read newpaper TV writers remark on that aspect being shown in film made about about bonobos. I don't have any great desire to inflict those facts on the world, but unfortunately bonobos are being promoted as peace loving metrosexual primates. Like that is what humans would be without culture repressing our natural sexual expression.Overagainst (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get a ping from you via WP:Echo, but your user page is currently on my WP:Watchlist. I was not going to reply to this bonobos post. But when I saw you add, "Like that is what humans would be without culture repressing our natural sexual expression.", and your use of the term metrosexual registered clearly for me, I decided to go ahead and reply. I'm not sure what you mean by "Like that is what humans would be without culture repressing our natural sexual expression.", but the term metrosexual does not apply to non-human animals, and I don't see that there is anything natural about an adult engaging in sexual activity with an infant, not even a bonobo adult. As many researchers have noted, it is highly faulty to compare non-human animal sexual behavior to human sexual behavior. Furthermore, how animals sexually behave is often used as a political or other social argument for things being natural or unnatural, which further clouds matters, whether it's arguing that same-sex sexual behavior is normal/natural, that child sexual abuse and/or pedophilia is normal/natural, or something else. And, yes, it's sort of bad that I just put "same-sex sexual behavior" and "child sexual abuse/pedophilia" into similar context, given how many homophobic people are quick to equate homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) with child sexual abuse/pedophilia, but those are two common arguments regarding non-human animal sexual behavior. And it's tired. Especially considering that many researchers stress that they don't know exactly why non-human animals engage in certain sexual behaviors, other than the kind that is intended for reproduction. Either way, though I have responded to you in this section, I am not interested in having this discussion. The very political or otherwise POV-driven nature of these types of discussions drains me before it even begins. Flyer22 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to know about some (a few anon people on Wikpedia) with the view, but I don't think I've ever seen the argument made that child sexual abuse and/or pedophilia is normal/natural. Those talking about bonobos as models of the natural never mention that aspect, so it quite easily could be not mentioned. (and indeed I haven't tried to put that weirdly titled ref, which is an article by an academic authority on the subject, back in). Non homophobic people like Christopher Ryan, the author of Sex at Dawn, do cite bonobos' "unapologetic homosexuality" (see here) as natural, while ommiting that they have also been seen (in captivity) getting weird with infant bonobos.
"And, yes, it's sort of bad that I just put "same-sex sexual behavior" and "child sexual abuse/pedophilia" into similar context, given how many homophobic people are quick to equate homosexuality (especially male homosexuality) with child sexual abuse/pedophilia, but those are two common arguments regarding non-human animal sexual behavior."
Like a lot of other people, Ryan explicity argues that Catholic clerical chastity as unnatural and leads to sexual abuse of children. So the real use of bonobos as natural is a cultural argument about human pedophilia. When it comes to bonobos the homosexuality is mentioned; never the weirdness with infants. So for or against homosexuality, certain facts about bonobo behaviour are being ommitted. In mainstream ideas thare is just one side citing bonobos, and that side gives a very strong moral condemnation of the traditional religious morality going on. Sex at Dawn was on the NYT bestseller list. Overagainst (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Vitamin D and physics[edit]

Count Iblis, I believe James Clerk Maxwell's calculations discovered that a governor should not have tight limits. Natural selection would produce humans able to deal with with fluctuations in synthesis of vitamin D. Because UVb is in great excess in summer there is a mechanism to switch off vitamin D synthesis. So even it you stand stark naked at noon in intense summer sunshine at the equator, there is is tremendous variability in vitamin d supply even over the course of a hour due to the skin synthesis switching off afer 20 minutes. As it is fat soluble and stored, the period of no synthesis from UVb in winter is dealt with from stored D. You seem to want to iron out all this, bypass the evolved mechaism, and instead of natural fluctuation have the same amount supplied every day. The problems are 1) Acute toxicity is not going to happen, but there is no way to prevent long term slow build up or declining stores; you have to be exactly right. 2)Northern latitude evolved humans evolved to deal with months without synthesis of vitamin D; what you are suggesting is the opposite of that. 3)A vast amount about vitamin D is unknown; For example:- Race, genetics explained variations in 25-hydroxyvitamin D Check out the comment by the IoM's Clifford J. Rosen "•...if one uses a cutoff of 30 ng/mL for total 25-(OH)D to define vitamin D insufficiency, nearly 96% of black Americans would be considered deficient or insufficient. Many of these same individuals will also have high levels of parathyroid hormone. Yet, black Americans have much greater bone mass than whites, and their risk for osteoporotic fractures is considerably lower than whites... measuring total serum 25-(OH)D and serum vitamin D-binding protein in a large cohort of black and white Americans. They also assessed polymorphisms in the vitamin D-binding protein and related those differences to serum total and bioactive vitamin D (done by calculating the concentration of total 25-[OH]D and vitamin D-binding protein). Powe and colleagues provide clear evidence that racial differences in serum 25-(OH)D are due to common genetic polymorphisms, and that bioavailable 25-(OH)D may be a better indicator for determining insufficiency". Overagainst (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

First, one needs to get an idea what the natural calcidiol levels are. In the modern world (first world or third world), almost no one gets the exposure to the sun as our recent ancestors were getting. You can't therefore measure the calcidiol level in people who spend most of their times in their offices and expect that to be a physiologically normal value. The only measurements that have ever been carried out on people who live in in a traditional way have allreported calcidiol values of the order of 120 nmol/l, see e.g. here.
Then one needs to consider what the role of vitamin D in the body is. We know that it is involved in the regulation of calcium metabolism, but there are thousands of genes that are controlled by calcitriol and most of these have nothing whatsoever to do with calcium metabolism. While a lot is known, a lot is also not known. However, a more fundamental question is why the body uses the seasonally dependent calcidiol level to regulate all these genes?
An obvious answer is that the body wants to configure itself differently during Winter compared to Summer. If you have to survive in Nature then it matters a lot if it is Winter or Summer. In Winter, you'll have difficulties finding enough food, so you'll proabably live off stored food and you don;t wan to waste too much of it. It makes a lot of sense that the lower vitamin D level is used by the body as a signal that it is Winter (or Winter is coming) and that then triggers a shift into survival mode, more of the energy from food will be stored as fat reserves, the maintanance of muscles will have less priority etc. etc. In the modern World we live in today, this adaptation to Winter survival mode is unnecessary and unhealthy. By keeping the calcidiol level high (around 150 nmol/l or higher) you will keep your body running in optimal maintainance mode.
None of this means that you can just swallow vitamin D pills and expect to become healthier. What it means is that someone who lives like our recent ancestors did will probably do better with a higher vitamin D level when it comes to maintaining physical fitness levels. Health benefits will mostly be derived from this increased fitness level, it is unlikely that vitamin D has a big direct impact on heart disease or cancer (as these did not provide for selection pressures). So, if you get plenty of exercise and eat healthy then vitamin D may help you to exercise even harder and eat even more of the healthy foods allowing you to become superfit. Of course, this does not exclude that for couch potatoes, higher viamin D levels may have adverse effects. Indeed vitamin D may itself have a negative health effect but the effects it has indirectly via its effect on exercise recuperation may overwhelm this. If you then don't get much exercise that would then lead to negative health effects.
While little of what I just wrote has been proven, this is what I think is most likely to be true given what we know. The only way to test this is to let thousands of young and healthy people follow a harsh exercise routine for a few year, give half of then a placebo the other half high dose vitamin D supplements and monitor their progress. Count Iblis (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be very convincing if those traditionally living populations in East Africa with a a mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of 115 nmol/l lived a long time. But, they don't. Few Maasai ever reached the age of 60 years. And these are Africans NECESSARILY incurring high VITAMIN D FROM THE SUN in the course of their mode of life (and your ref says they avoid the sun when they can), they would be would be genetically adapted to that life. How is this Maasai lifestyle the same as a north European (or African American) taking high dosages in pills. It isn't which is why this is predictable:-
"The assembled data from many vitamin D supplementation studies reveal a curve for vitamin D dose versus serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] response that is surprisingly flat up to 250 μg (10000 IU) vitamin D/d. To ensure that serum 25(OH)D concentrations exceed 100 nmol/L, a total vitamin D supply of 100 μg (4000 IU)/d is required. (Vieth, 1999)".
'Flat'. So in fact our bodies do not hoover up vitamin D, they reject vitamin D from pills, just as they reject too much from the sun. This is clearly a homeostatic mechanism. You're the one who is going against nature.
" Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D (2011)p.492. "These factors help to explain why latitude alone does not appear to predict serum 25OHD concentrations in humans. In a Finnish study, healthy subjects living above the Arctic Circle (latitude 66°N) did not have lower serum 25OHD levels than subjects living in southern Finland; in fact, the group living above the Arctic Circle had higher levels. Both groups achieved mean serum 25OHD levels above 90 nmol/L during the summer, whereas the mean serum 25OHD level at the winter nadir was 56 nmol/L in the south and 68 nmol/L in those living above the Arctic Circle (Lamberg-Allardt et al., 1983). [...] "large-scale pooled analysis (n = 2,285) found a statistically significant two-fold increased risk for pancreatic cancer in participants with serum 25OHD levels at or above 100 nmol/L compared with those with levels between 50 to 75 nmol".
Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study"During follow-up (median: 12.7 y), 584 (49%) participants died. There was a U-shaped association between vitamin D concentrations and total mortality. An approximately 50% higher total mortality rate was observed among men in the lowest 10% (<46 nmol/L) and the highest 5% (>98 nmol/L) of plasma 25(OH)D concentrations compared with intermediate concentrations"
What do the National Acadamies know? Well,"Frank C. Garland, Epidemiologist Who Connected Vitamin D Deficiency and Cancer, Dies" "The cause was cancer of the esophageal junction." He had been ill for a year. Garland presumably practiced, supplementation of vitamin D to reach a blood level of 100-150 nmol/L; he certainly advocated it.
When the time comes Count, remember I warned you._Overagainst (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a purely model independent analysis from data. When you draw conclusions, seemingly led only by the data, you atill implicitly invoke an underlying model. My biggest objection against the analysis that concludes that we must be extremely cautious with vitamin D is that they make implicit assumptions that are a priori implausible. I then prefer to interpret the data according to my own preferred model, but then my arguments may seem to be a lot weaker because I'm explicit about my unproven model.
That the body makes an enzyme that breaks down calcidiol and it does that faster the higher calcidiol levels are is precisely what I would expect to happen. I don't think vitamin D is some precious nutrient the body wants to have a big store of. The body keeps some functions under lock and key, cells need to convert calcidiol into calcitriol to switch on certain genes. The higher the calcidiol levels, the more frequent a cell can do this. Clearly the intent is to put certain functions on a ration that depends on the season. In Winter the body wants to impose stricter limits than in the Summer, this is a pre-emptive austerity measure that is not needed anymore.
This limits the rate at which a cell can make certain enzymes. The higher the calcidiol level, the higher this maximum rate is set. But this requires that the calcidiol that is not converted to calcitriol is broken down. Most cells don't need to make the enzymes that fall under the restriction frequently enough for the limit t be relevant. This system only affects the small minority of cells that find themselves having to make a lot of these enzymes. So, I do agree that there are biological mechanisms that want to impose certain limits that you are pushing back against with vitamin D supplementations. But in my model, this is because without vitamin D supplementation the body would assume that it is winter time and then wants to implement very rigorous austerity measures at the expense of optimal health. Count Iblis (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have a theoretical model about what happens. I have shown that actual people with the vitamin D levels you advocate have worse health.Overagainst (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Higher vitamin D levels are according to my model more likely to enhance the health of people who live according to a healthy lifestyle. If you e.g. draw a graph of the risk of heart disease as a function of physical activity, you may find that with higer vitamin D levels the curve goes down faster (because more physical activity promotes more fitness and vitamin D enhances this effect).
However, this also means that at higher vitamin D levels, if you look in the other direction and consider lowering the physical activity, the curve goes up faster. It may then well be the case that you are worse off taking vitamin D supplements if you don't exercise a lot. Since the vast majority of the population gets way too little exercise, one can question the validity of your conclusions, assuming they are confirmed in rigorous double blind tests. Count Iblis (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not a model that Garland is dead of cancer. "Tsujikawa H, Kurotaki Y, Fujimori T, Fukuda K, Nabeshima Y (December 2003). "Klotho, a gene related to a syndrome resembling human premature aging, functions in a negative regulatory circuit of vitamin D endocrine system". Mol. Endocrinol. 17 (12): 2393–403. doi:10.1210/me.2003-0048."
"Recent studies have identified FGF23 as a novel endocrine factor that lowers blood phosphate and vitamin D levels [33–35]. FGF23 is secreted from osteocytes in response to high blood phosphate and vitamin D levels [36]. FGF23 acts on kidney to 1) induce phosphaturia by suppressing Na-phosphate cotransporters in renal tubular cells and 2) counter-regulate vitamin D by down-regulating expression of the Cyp27b1 gene encoding 1α-hydroxylase, the enzyme that synthesizes 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 from its inactive precursor (25-hydroxyvitamin D3), and by up-regulating expression of the Cyp24 gene encoding 24-hydroxylase, the enzyme that inactivates 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3[31]. As a result, FGF23 reduces serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, which in turn reduces phosphate absorption from intestine. Thus, FGF23 induces a negative phosphate balance by functioning as a phosphaturic hormone as well as a counter-regulatory hormone for vitamin D" Klotho and aging.
A gene variant for extra klotho gives you an extra six points in IQ, and it slows down aging too.Overagainst (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The body does this itself. If it were advantageous to just have low vitamin D levels, then the body would not have evolved to regulate the expression of the relevant genes using calcitriol in the first place. The body is in principle perfectly capable of producing enzymes to switch genes on or off that do not depend on external factors like UV radiation for its synthesis.
Klotho plays a part in regulatory processes of the body, just like the break in your car. That doesn't mean that you don't need to have a throttle (calcitriol) or that filling your gas tank to low levels is better (low vitamin D levels). I would argue that having high vitamin D levels is better as you can then let your own body decide with maximimum freedom what action to take. Cars with better brakes may indeed be less involved in accidents and live longer, but that's not a good argument to not fill up your gas tank. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Vitamin D levels could be 10 times higher, if the skin synthesis switch off mechanism was tweaked; so the levels you arbitrarily call low are not low, or high. They are what they are, all year round, because of natural selection. They have improved to function at a very high level of efficiency. Like your brain. Overagainst (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 27 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Dempsey[edit]

WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring are worth a read. 7&6=thirteen () 21:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You are edit warring, which can get you blocked by administrators from editing. Please work on this incrementally so that we can come to a consensus. 7&6=thirteen () 21:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jack Dempsey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please discuss on the talk page of the article in question. -- Winkelvi 22:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)