User talk:Hue16459

November 2023

Hello, I'm MrOllie. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was neutral and factual. The article listed does not state that NP training programs have 100% admittance rates. The article states that there are MSN programs which have 100% acceptance rates but the article does not specify if these programs are nurse practitioner programs. A nurse may get an MSN in a non-practitioner specialty such as education.

Additionally there are no entry to nursing MSN degrees that are training programs for advanced licensure. Entry to nursing MSN programs only confer eligibility to sit for the RN exam. Hue16459 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the reliable sources on Wikipedia. You can't simply delete sourced content because you disagree with it. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Although nurse practitioners are required to be licensed as registered nurses prior to obtaining their advanced practice registered nurse certification, there are several programs that combine a nursing undergraduate degree with nurse practitioner training.” This statement does not a have a reference and the information is not factually correct. There are no MSN entry to nursing practice degrees that are NP training programs. MSN entry to nursing degrees are for non nurses who already have an unrelated bachelors degree. The MSN entry to nursing degree allows someone to get an MSN with their initial RN licensure instead of duplicating a BSN.

The second part of the statement is also factually incorrect as it states “Other nurse practitioner programs have 100% acceptance rates.” which is not what the article states. The article is titles “Nursing Master's Programs With 100% Admit Rates” and never does it specifically say the programs are nurse practitioner training programs. MSNs are offered in a variety of specialties including informatics, leadership, and education, none of which are nurse practitioner training programs. Hue16459 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Nurse practitioner. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. In particular, generic titles, such as "nurse practitioner", are not capitalized. The leading n is only capitalized at the start of a sentence or infobox entry. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that when referring to nurse practitioners as a general title it remains lowercased but when referring to a Nurse Practitioner as in referring to a single person or professional license it is capitalized. I am happy to reverse course if I am incorrect. Please advise. Hue16459 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I solicited users who have chosen to volunteer as part of the wiki project nursing which this page is of high importance. There has only been one other user engaging in the conversation so more parties are need to build consensus. Because the nurse practitioner page is part of the nursing profession it makes sense to invite users who have expertise in the field. If you believe that other users could also contribute to the conversation I would ask you to also invite them. Hue16459 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also just posted the same request on the wiki project medicine talk page. Hue16459 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid-level practitioner

Are you going to complete the nomination of Mid-level practitioner for deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did thank you. It took a while to write up the summary. This is my first time recommending a page for deletion so please let me know if I did anything wrong or need to do anything else. Hue16459 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready to propose renaming Mid-level practitioner? The instructions are at Wikipedia:Moving a page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for following up. Let me see if I can figure it out. Hue16459 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to open a new discussion post on the talk page prior to initiating the move? Or does the previous conversation on the deletion talk page suffice? Hue16459 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone would object, but starting a discussion is certainly the safer approach. The easiest way to set this up is:

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and scroll down a little. In the middle of the first section ("Browsing"), find and turn on Twinkle. Scroll to the end to save this change to your prefs.
Go to Mid-level practitioner. Look in the corner, past the Edit button and the watchlist star, for a new menu, "TW". (If it's not there, then reload the page in your web browser.) In the TW menu, choose "XFD".
Inside the dialog box for XFD, the first item is "Deletion discussion venue:" and it defaults to WP:AFD, but we don't want that. Switch that to the last item, "RM (Requested Moves)".
Type the name of the new title in the blank, and your reasons in the big box. Click "Submit Query", wait a moment, and then look at the end of Talk:Mid-level practitioner. It should have tagged the article and started a new discussion section at the end of the article. From there, you can edit your comments or add another one.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you help and easy to follow instructions. I was able to complete the action. Hue16459 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:NPTruth per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NPTruth. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request to be unblocked. I am not an SPI and MrOllie filed this request instead of participating in a dispute resolution request that I filed. Thank you. Hue16459 (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2023 (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).

Hue16459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not an SP. I have had no other account on wikipedia nor have I ever been banned. I have issue with the information presented on the page because it is wrong. The same information countless people have brought issue with in the past. I filed an a dispute resolution against the MrOllie over the issues with the article and he failed to participate. Instead he filed this SPI. MrOllie has for years presented editing of this article to remove negative bias. All the information I presented was in good faith, it is appropriate, and it complies with Wikipedia policy.Hue16459 (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is quite obvious that you are the same person, but even if you aren't, that only makes this meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2023 (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.

New posts to bottom, please, for proper flow. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2023 (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).

Hue16459 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Good morning, There is no way for me to prove I am not the same person other then by saying I am not. I have never felt a need to edit wikipedia until I read the nurse practitioner page and saw how horribly biased the information was. The fact that two separate people have made the same argument related to certain information is simply a representation of how the information is most likely incorrect. I am also not a meat puppet I have no association with any nurse practitioner group nor was I recruited by any individual. I have simply done extensive research to try to improve the article. I have also edited unrelated pages on Wikipedia as I have come across them based on my personal knowledge of the topics. Although I am new to Wikipedia I have made every effort to make edits the correct way. I submitted a page move request based on the guidance of another editor and was waiting for the next steps in that process. I believe I have done everything the right way and I am simply trying to make edits that it appears numerous people in the past also believe needed to be made. Hue16459 (talk) 8:38 am, 26 December 2023, Tuesday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

per discussion with blocking admin. I'm sorry, I am are unable to unblock you at this time. I recommend waiting at least six months before you again request unblocking. (You should not evade your block by editing the English language Wikipedia from a different account or while not logged in during this time. It would reset the six month timer.) It would work in your favor for you to constructively edit a different Wikipedia or Wikimedia project during this time, for at least six months and at least 500 edits. You will then need to concisely and clearly tell how your editing merited a block, what you would do different, and what constructive edits you would make. A list of Wikimedia projects can be found at META:List_of_Wikipedias . Before again requesting unblocking, please read the Guide to Appealing Blocks Please read and heed any other advice you have received. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2024 (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.

Unblock discussion for above request

Someone else will review this, but per WP:MEAT, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." 331dot (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hue16459, could you elaborate on what you meant by "two separate people have made the same argument"? Did you mean NPTruth and DrGoalie? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning I meant NPTruth and myself. I did not know what edits NPTruth had attempted to make until I read the SPI report from MrOllie as related to my suspension when it was posted on my talk page yesterday. I also would have responded to that SPI report directly had I known that was an option but I had no idea I could access that report. It appears I am being associated with the NPTruth account simply because I attempted to remove the same information and gave the same reason however, the reason I gave for my edit was solely based on facts so it would be expected another person would make the same factual argument. I do understand why it may appear that I could be the same person who was previously banned and I don’t fault MrOllie for reporting me but again I have no idea who this other person was. I also fully agree that it does look suspicious that I have devoted so much energy into editing the nurse practitioner page but that is only because this is my first time working on Wikipedia, this is the first page I was trying to edit which has snowballed into a major content dispute, and I am trying to figure out all of the Wikipedia policies. I have edited a few other pages and I was waiting for my request to move of the mid-level provider page (recommended by another user) to progress to a conclusion so I can continue to make edits before I was suspended. Again I understand the suspicion behind my account but I am just a first time user trying to improve Wikipedia. Hue16459 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think I would not be opposed to an unblock if you agree to not edit anything related to nurse practitioners. There's a history of tendentious editing with those topics from NPTruth and sockpuppets that argue the same thing and insist the same thing. If we unblock you now, there'd be more disruption in that area which I do not want to see.

Therefore, if you agree to a topic ban from health care providers, broadly construed, as part of unblock condition, I think we can then move forward from here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend for this to be confrontational but at what point does it become an issue with the content and not the editors. I am not saying that NPTruth or the other account were not sockpuppets but I attempted to edit the same issues with the article and gave the same rationale, based entirely on facts, without ever seeing what previous accounts had done. In looking at the page history there have been a handful of different editors that have attempted to make corrections to the article and a single user MrOllie reverts those edits every time. The argument that any account that attempts to correct the same misinformation must therefore be a Sockpuppet is inherently flawed.

This is the what is written in the wikipedia article "Other nurse practitioner programs have 100% acceptance rates" and this is what is written in the reference article "Everyone who applied to these nursing master's programs for fall 2019 admission was accepted." As myself and many other editors have stated not all nursing masters programs are nurse practitioner programs and a nurse can get a masters degree in a multitude of other specialties. No where in this article does it say that any of these programs are exclusively nurse practitioner programs. In fact the third college on the list Curry College does not even offer a Masters nurse practitioner program. Because this was a content dispute between MrOllie and myself I filed a dispute resolution request which is appropriate given the circumstances, and MrOllie refused to participate. Instead he labeled me a Sockpuppet which I am not and began the process of having my account banned. Again I do not know if there was actually evidence to support that these previous edits were made by actual sockpuppets but it appears to me that MrOllie holds totalitarian control over the edits on the nurse practitioner page and anyone that disagrees with him and attempts to correct misinformation or remove opinions without valid references is labeled a Sockpuppet and permanently banned from wikipedia.

I do not believe that I should be banned or receive a topic ban because I have only attempted to make appropriate edits to this page and others. You can see that I have not attempted to further edit the disputed content but rather attempted to reach community consensus by using the wikipedia tools in accordance with wikipedia policy. My request to move the mid-level practitioner page to advanced practice provider (recommended by another user) is currently 3-2 in favor of the move or 2-1 if you remove myself and MrOllie from the vote. Additionally, I have made considerable improvements to the NP page without disrupting the disputed content. I have no issue including critical information of NPs but that information needs to actually be factual. I wish to continue to improve the NP page without disturbing the disputed content until community consensus can be reached on whether that information should be changed or removed. Hue16459 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support a checkuser on my account to prove I am not a sockpuppet. Hue16459 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to prove a negative, and as such see WP:CHECKME; "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." 331dot (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand what I can do here to show that I am not a Sockpuppet? Hue16459 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have, and you decline to accept that. We're not asking you to agree to a permanent prohibition. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding but I was under the impression that the content ban on health care providers was permanent. Hue16459 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of an indefinite (not permanent) topic ban is for you to show that you can constructively contribute to Wikipedia while not going into the pitfalls of suspected sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. If you agree to the unblock condition, you could appeal the topic restriction after demonstrating that you understand the policy and guidelines. Single-purpose accounts run into advocacy/disruption issues, which would be prevented with a topic ban. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to a "nurse practitioner" topic band but I feel that a "health care providers, broadly construed" topic ban would prevent me from editing almost all pages related to medical topics, which is what I find most interesting. Hue16459 (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about "non-physician practitioners, broadly construed"? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the definition you are using to define the professionals that fall under that term? Also would such a ban prevent me from creating or editing collateral pages? For instance if I wanted to create the page for the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board would that be allowed? Hue16459 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the page broadly construed for what it means. For that specific article, no, it wouldn't be. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ask it to be "nurse practitioners, broadly construed" since this is the root of the issue and it is not overly restrictive to solve the alleged issue. Hue16459 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef: Unblock? Decline? WP:SO my first choice. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Let's go with WP:SO then. I am not satisfied with them repeatedly asking for the topic ban to be more lenient. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]