User talk:NPTruth

Welcome!

Hello, NPTruth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 excited about 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Making Edits on a locked/protected page

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I really don’t understand how to suggest edits when a page is locked/protected. Thank you. NPTruth (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "view source" tab (which replaces "edit" tab) from there you'll see a link that will guide you to submit edit request directly. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely frustrated. The page for Nurse Practitioner (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_practitioner) and it’s talk page are locked. I can’t add a topic to the talk page nor respond to anything. This is ludicrous that pages that are supposed to define and provide evidence through well sourced references are being held hostage for no apparent reason. NPTruth (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me as I am completely frustrated. The page for Nurse Practitioner (Nurse practitioner) and it’s talk page are locked. I can’t add a topic to the talk page nor respond to anything. This is ludicrous that pages that are supposed to define and provide evidence through well sourced references are being held hostage for no apparent reason. How does one "build consensus" if every edit is automatically rejected despite very concrete reasons as to why they should take place (i.e. from credible vs. non-credible sources). NPTruth (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection is only temporary, and will be gone within 24 hours(depending on where you are). It is unusual to protect a talk page, but there seems to have been an issue with spamming on it. I see that your only edits have been to Talk:Nurse practitioner and to this page, and you have a username that suggests you have some sort of specific purpose in being here other than an interest in being a Wikipedia contributor. Instead of accusing others of holding things hostage, you should collaborate with others to achieve a consensus as to what the article should say. If there is some sort of intractable dispute, there are avenues of dispute resolution open to you. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should comment on your connection to the editors Shamachen (talk · contribs), HEALTH IS-A TEAM SPORT (talk · contribs), Raraavis31 (talk · contribs), Cleight (talk · contribs) and so on. That so many brand-new editors independently come to the same article's talk page at the same time to make the same point is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely, and a concerted effort to change Wikipedia content by sheer weight of numbers is disruptive. See WP:COWORKER for the relevant policy (which doesn't just apply to coworkers in the strict sense). Huon (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Huon (talk · contribs) should not assume that I know those editors and I don't. Perhaps you should consider that the 270,000 nurse practitioners across the U.S. are aware of this mockery of an entry and are attempting to set the record straight. Have a great night!! NPTruth (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2019

You don't have to know any other editors for there to be a coordinated effort to influence the article's content. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the only "coordination" are the people who actually are educated and licensed in that role calling out the mistruths. What if the Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) entry made an outlandish statement such as "police in rural areas are not as well prepared as city police" or "state police get more hours of training than city police" or "police training is 1% of military training." The article cites poor references to opinion pieces and low quality studies to justify the denigration of the profession and the many calls for correction -- going back years -- have largely been ignored. Yes, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing however, that shouldn't preclude anyone from suggesting legitimate and well sourced rationale for edits. Thank you for your time. NPTruth (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

A "WikiProject" is a group of editors who work together to improve articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing isn't very active these days, especially since User:Basie hasn't been editing as much recently, but it might have some useful resources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health might also interest you. Most editors "join" just by reading the group's talk page and pitching in however they can.

Also, can you recommend a favorite textbook? I find that nursing textbooks have different, more patient-focused information that belongs in the articles (for example, information about recovering from different surgeries). We don't want "how to" advice, but we do want factual descriptions that say things like "Most people can return to work one week after the surgery" or "are at risk of these complications" (or whatever the real facts are). Generally speaking, a reputable textbook that was published during the last five years is considered a high-quality source for Wikipedia articles. I don't know enough about nursing textbooks to know which ones have the best reputation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information WhatamIdoing about Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing. As far as recommended Medical-Surgical Textbook, I would suggest Medical-Surgical Nursing: Assessment and Management of Clinical Problems, Single Volume, ISBN-13: 978-0323328524. This should have all the basic nursing care facts you are looking for. If there is anything else I can do to assist, please let me know! NPTruth (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please help me understand how the existing analysis of NPs not being able to treat/recognize is not already biased? Every edit that I provided is neutral and can be cited from reputable sources as I provided where appropriate. Thank you NPTruth (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Nurse practitioner for persistent advocacy edits. The associated article talk page remains available to you to discuss changes to the article..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are not biased

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NPTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, please read the edits that I am making. Just because someone is undoing changes and claiming that they are advocacy and pushing a POV isn't true when the existing content is so already biased. I've provided non-biased and factual references. I respectfully ask to be unblocked from making edits to the Nurse practitioner page that has pereniially been disputed multiple times with evidence to only have it overturned. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You will not be given access to the article itself until you can demonstrate that you have collaborated with other editors to work towards a consensus instead of attempting to impose your will on the article just because you think it is correct. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You named your account "NPTruth" and used it (nearly) exclusively over several years to edit the Nurse practitioner article in an attempt to get it to say what you believe it should. This is advocacy. As I noted, the article talk page is still available to you to discuss changes and see if there is consensus to have them implemented. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed your link for proper display; to link to another page or article on Wikipedia, simply place the title in double brackets like this: [[Nurse practitioner]] which appears as shown above. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

yes

As you've now created DrGoalie to edit the same topic area, I've converted your block to site-wide.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may not remove declined unblock requests from your talkpage, so I have reverted your edits just now. You remain free to remove anything else you'd like. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NPTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I ask that the site wide block be removed as I was accused of editing the “same topic area” without absolutely any proof. Edits I’ve made were never disrespectful or biased. The claim of pushing a POV when one already exists on said page makes it impossible to build consensus when edits are automatically reverted. This page has long been biased and any attempts to use well-cited references are always refused for some reason. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You're missing the point. Your block is now for sockpuppetry; the details are above and this request doesn't address that, much less acknowledge it. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

} NPTruth (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NPTruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you. The fact is that whatever sock puppetry I’ve been alleged of cannot be proven. Secondly, I’ve reviewed the edits of the alleged second account and they weren’t made on the same page (a similar topic, but entirely different attempted edits). Therefore again, I’m requesting that this ridiculous site-wide block be removed.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.