Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 21 September 2006

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, THB, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice you're moving hundreds of articles with no explanation whatsoever--205.188.117.9 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the admins can't either. Keep up the good work! See this for example. --HappyCamper 00:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nursing care plans

Hi THB, it seems you have been single-handedly working on the nursing-related articles on Misplaced Pages. Have you thought about setting up a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject?

I've just discovered the fact that from about 20 October someone has been uploading "nursing care plans" for a whole host of diseases. Little attempt has been made to wikify the articles. They seem to originate from the International Biopharamceutical Association - yet I found their disclaimer ambiguous on whether this material is free under the GFDL.

I'd like your opinion on this. Ideally, the nursing aspects of any medical condition are so closely related to the condition itself they may well form a dedicated paragraph. For example, nursing care plan for iron deficiency anemia is largely redundant with iron deficiency anemia, and the real nursing aspects could well be merged with the former article without loss of information.

What do you think? JFW 16:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps the Biopharmaceutical Association should be credited in the "references" or "external links" section, as we do with material from the US government which is essentially PD.

I am not sure that the articles should remain unmerged. After all, they pertain directly and only to the disease under discussion, and leaving them unmerged would give the impression that the nursing is completely dissociated from the medical management (quod non). Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia and not a nursing manual.

Do you know any others on Misplaced Pages who may be interested in this issue? I'm hesitant to make an RFC out of this straight away, nor do I want to drop this into articles for deletion, as the material is still quite useful. JFW | T@lk 08:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure deletion is actually the best thing? I do think that some of the material is not yet covered on Misplaced Pages, and would benefit from merging. I'm taking this to my "colleages" at the medical Wikiproject to see what their view is on this.

Misplaced Pages aims to be an encyclopedia, but does not have the space constraints of normal encyclopedias ("Wiki is not paper"). We can therefore afford to be a lot more elaborate if the subject demands this. This is why we can afford to have individual articles on episodes of The Simpsons etc etc. On the other hand, we do still have limitations where the material is biased, previously unpublished or unverifiable. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC to see what everyone else thinks, see here (I've taken the liberty to copy our above discussion verbatim). JFW | T@lk 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Nursing care plans on VFD

They are all on VFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nursing care plans. I appreciate your help in this matter. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Patient care

Hi ya. I know that the patient care article was miles from the best that[REDACTED] has to offer. But I don't understand why you've done what you've done with it. It seems that you moved patient care to Nursing care plan for tuberculosis when I don't recall the article even mentioned TB, that seems like a bit of a strange choice. Then you changed Nursing care plan for tuberculosis to a redirect to Tuberculosis which, by the article names seems appropriate, but none of the content from the original patient care article was merged into TB (which makes sense in a way, since the original article wasn't about TB). And then patient care was changed to a redirect to health care which, although they are similar ideas, aren't really the same thing. Could you please help me understand why you made these changes? Thanks Matt 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it all makes sense now. Matt 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

If you move an article that's on afd, please make sure that it still points at the discussion instead of a redlink; this helps the discussion be found if you stumble across the article (or actually wrote it), instead of just reading afd. You can do this either by making a redirect (as I've done at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Penturbia), or by editing the link in the afd notice. —Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Regiments, Whoa!

• See my comments here.evrik 18:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's hash this one out on the discussion page.evrik 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question about regiments, I am not much of an expert on Civil War history. Perhaps you should ask User:Evrik. However, I think Missouri and maybe Kentucky and Virginia (eventually West Virginia) had organized troops fighting on both sides. — Eoghanacht 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly was the question?evrik 03:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to look for the info that you're requesting, but there is a lot written about it. Look at Civil_War_Corps_Badges#Brigade_Badges. It goes something like Corps/Army, Division, Brigade. Militias are separate.evrik 04:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Parks

Regarding the new Category:American Civil War National Battlefields and Military Parks: If you think a category for protected Civil War battlefields is useful, perhaps a more general one is better. How about Category:American Civil War sites? It could include national battlefields, as well as state, local, and even battlefields administered by private trusts. — Eoghanacht 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found a Category:World War II sites, so I have just changed the suggested sytax above to match it. I do not know if that category needs to differentiate between parks/non-parks -- as each article would have multiple categories which would tell a reader if it is a "national battlefield", "state park" or whatever. Perhaps the header for such a category would be This category contains public battlefields, parks, and other publically accessible protected areas associated with the American Civil War. — Eoghanacht 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 1% for major edits and 69% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Misplaced Pages, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamza Yusuf

Thank you so much for your work on that article! It seems NPOV to me now; if you want to take off the bias notice, you can. Good job of editing. Zora 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nurse paintings article

I apologize for not going through the proper procedure with regard to removing this article. I've corrected that. KarlBunker 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CfD nomination for Civil War battlefield category.

FYI, I recently rominated a renaming for your Civil War battlefield category. — Eoghanacht 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 23#Category:American Civil War National Battlefields and Military Parks to Category:American Civil War battlefields

It is helpful in CfD discussions if the category-creator weighs in with an opinion -- particularly if it is in agreement or neutral. — Eoghanacht 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights template

Thanks for posting the Gay rights template to so many articles. Wuzzy 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this, why did you do it to Youth Liberation of Ann Arbor? It doesn't seem to belong there at all... --Rory096 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's in Category:LGBT rights organizations. (No, I didn't put it there....)THB 12:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman

Because of your contribution to Entrism I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman, which have strongly connected topics. You might have seen that a moderation was attempted on those pages after some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. He agreed to the moderation but then did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism). In my opinions and others, including the moderator assigned, Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. I still hope Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Since the dispute centres on entryism, your contribution will probabaly valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks! --Duncan 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shrinking images

Awhile back, at Confederate Memorial Hall, you requested that someone shrink the illustration. I've done that; you probably have already figured out the code to do it, but here's an example just in case.

]

Enjoy! Isopropyl 05:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Coats_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Coats_logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Category alphabetization

Hi THB, I fixed the alphabetization for the Nurse category. I hope you don't mind. :o) Maltmomma 12:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

== Missing cat on Camp Creek State Park ==

Thanks for catching the lack of categories at Camp Creek. WVhybrid 17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Aulola Apikotoa AfD

Hi THB, you nominated Aulola Apikotoa for deletion and completed steps one and three of the process. You haven't yet completed step 2 which is to provide the reasoning for the nomination, I've posted this message to you in case you do want to contribute to the discussion. MLA 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Prodding

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks!

Further, the edit summary should say prod prominently, not just "cat" as you did at Camp Kahquah. Also, please put prod notices on the top of articles, not the bottom. We want them to be prominent. GRBerry 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocate

I'm considering requesting an advocate in the current telepathy debate, but I would like to hear your opinion before I do so. -- Selmo 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV

You don't need to go to AfD to propose a merge; do it yourself, or place a {{mergeinto}} tag on the article. Thanks! Grandmasterka 04:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

=

Commonwealth vs. American English

When are you guys gonna learn to spell ?

This grievance comes from those who aren't aware that British and American spellings sometimes differ.

We've been at the centre of some rancour, but we're not going to take offence or harbour any grievances. The catalogue of complaints won't colour this organisation's programme. It's a grey area anyway. And we don't want to labour the point.

You have been blocked for harassment and abuse

TBH, you are behaving very abusively. Inserting this comment all over the place amounts to harassment and trolling of Askolnick. This edit is even worse. Plus, your appearances and types of edits in all these histories show a clear pattern of Misplaced Pages:Stalking: , , , , . I originally intended to merely give you a stern warning to desist and one more chance to show that you are here to build the encyclopedia, rather than to harass a fellow editor. But studying the history of this page and seeing how many well-founded and explanatory warnings from Askolnick himself you have deleted, I don't feel yet another warning would be much use, so I'm blocking you for 48 hours. Note that this is a restrained block for the kind of plaguing and goading of another editor you've been indulging in. Please stay a long way away from Askolnick when you return from the block. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC).