User talk:Nardilly

Welcome...

Hello, Nardilly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas' Hospital

The St Thomas' Hospital is probably a bad place to put a link to your campaign. You might, though, write an article on the incident - but use newspaper articles as the main sources rather than a non-neutral website. SpinningSpark 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Waterloo Hospital for Children and Women

Hello Nardilly! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your input to the article Royal Waterloo Hospital!

I wrote the article about a month ago (it’s important to note that it does not belong to me, but as all Wikipedia articles it belongs to the Wikipedia community - which includes you). The reason I chose to write an article on the hospital was that I had been working on Stamford Street during January so was also able to photograph it. I had also seen a documentary on the Royal Waterloo on BBC TV by medical journalist Michael J. Mosley called "The Brain: A Secret History” in it he took a former patient of the hospital back to the ward at the Royal Waterloo on which she was chemically comatosed for months and subjected to ECT therapy against her wishes.

With regards to your inclusion of the website: The Royal Waterloo Experiment Website you run the risk of entering into what’s known as an Edit War with User:MilborneOne. This is a situation where two editors repeatedly revert the edits of the other: you added the link, the other user removed it, you added it again, they removed it etc. Edit wars are very easy to get into, and can create real hostility, as they’re horrible infinite cycles that don’t achieve anything.

The guidelines on including external websites in Wikipedia articles can be found here. I believe that user MilborneOne removed the link you included because it is an opinion piece and it contains information that isn’t verifiable. It’s important to bear in mind that Wikipedia isn’t here to right great wrongs, only exists to exist to document reliable sources.

The best thing to do now is to discuss why you want the link to the Royal Waterloo Experiment Website included in the article. This should be done on the article’s talk page (click here).

Another good course of action would be to include a well-sourced section on controversy at the hospital. In fact this is already brushed upon in the article on the doctor William Sargant. The article Royal Waterloo Hospital could do with more information sourced from reliable sources as it currently is written with a very thin veneer of knowledge gleaned mostly from old issues of the British Medical Journal archived in the jstor.org website.

Or we could write a new article as the user above suggests (the post regarding St. Thomas’ Hospital), as the experiences of some of the patients is reliably documented (such as in the BBC documentary I mentioned above).

I look forward to future collaboration towards making these articles better! TehGrauniad (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]