User talk:UWPA2013

Hello, UWPA2013, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! ȸ (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PANCE / PANRE Blueprint (comprehensive content) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PANCE / PANRE Blueprint (comprehensive content) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on PANCE Blueprint, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kinu ^t/_c 18:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The content was determined to be inappropriate for this encyclopedia at the deletion discussion. Continuing to recreate this content is disruptive. Kinu ^t/_c 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you have against free and open information, or why you thing expanding a topic is "disruptive." I you could find one single medical professional who agreed with you I'd give you $100. But I will take solace in knowing that you or your children, or your grandchildren will receive worse medical care because you want to be a wiki tyrant.

This is your only warning; if you introduce jokes into articles again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edit summary here is unnecessary. Feel free to edit, but lose the attitude or you'll likely find yourself blocked for personal attacks. Kinu ^t/_c 02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to follow up on your previous "question", the short answer: copyrighted content that you've taken from here and pasted into an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We all have to abide by that policy; you are no exception. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person who has been deleting my work to engage with me in dialogue. Thank You! It is extremely frustrating to have your work consistently deleted without any justification given. I believe the blueprint is open domain. Otherwise, everyone with a test review out there would be sued. But I will get verification from the nccpa for you.

Email from me to the nccpa: I would like to add the PANCE blueprint (outline) to a Wikipedia page, with reference citation to nccpa.net. I was under the impression that the blueprint was open and free domain. Wikipedia feels that it is a copyright violation. Can you please clarify? Does nccap oppose the inclusion of the blueprint into the wikipedia page about the PANCE & PANRE? Thank You, UWPA2013 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you understand: the PANCE is something that Thousands of medical providers do every year and we all need to know. I wish these people who keep deleting would do some research (you included: although I've just read on your page that you may just be following someone else's lead). A search of Amazon or Google for PANCE review will return lots of sources selling the information that is already free on Wikipedia! The only issue is that there is no single page that consolidated all those content points. Copyright I understand, but you are the first person to say that. All the other admin seem to delete on the principle that it doesn’t belong. SUPER frustrating! If I knew it was going to be this hard and take this much time, I would have just make a webpage and linked into the hundred or so wikipedia pages.

Can you explain to me why this is against any rule. I'm only giving the outline of the PANCE content (aka: blueprint as it is called). If you go the the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Or the Occupational Outlook Handbook, you'll see that PA's are one of the fastest growing professions. Yet, there is very little information about them. And the information that Wikipedia has is vague and sporadic. [You're a math guy right?] If I made a page about the SAT's (or added to a page) and said that for the math section students will encounter questions covering: arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus; would you delete it? What it I broke down each topic and said for example, Arithmetic: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Trig: slope, sign, cosign, quadratic equations, ect. Would that be against the rules? UWPA2013 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous articles, the content was copied verbatim from the blueprint. The content is already available on the NCCPA's website, and it clearly states that it is copyrighted at the bottom. That's justification enough to delete it. Regardless, its appropriateness here is questionable. Wikipedia is not the purpose of Wikipedia to mirror content found elsewhere on the Internet, nor is it supposed to serve as a guidebook for potential test-takers... it's an encyclopedia. A summary, such as the scope you added to the article, is appropriate; expanding it without dumping the entire contents of the blueprint would possibly be reasonable. Beyond that, a link to the source material is sufficient. I don't know whose "lead" you're accusing me of following, but Wikipedia operates on policies and guidelines based on consensus that other editors have reached regarding such material. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To use your SAT analogy, here is the relevant section of said article: SAT#Style_of_questions. Note the parallel to what could be at the PANCE article and how this differs from dumping the entire blueprint into it. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your reply. I can see your point. Setting the copyright issue aside. The way that I see it the inclusion of the Bluprint differently is that 1) the "content" doesn't exist on the NCCPA. Just saying ex: aortic aneurysm doesn't provide any content. It's just a name. There is a wiki page that explains it :-). 2) The wiki explanation of the PANCE is inadequate without the blueprint. Anyone looking up the PANCE, wants to know the content it covers. Not allowing the blueprint would be akin to trying to find out about Calculus and prohibiting mention of (derivatives, integrals, ect.). Please, please, please look up the calculus wiki page. It has a box on the top right hand side of the page that has a drill down feature (like an index). This would be an amazing addition/contribution for medical knowledge. Or PANCE and or USMLE wiki pages. It is not providing anything that isn't already on Wikipedia. It's just allowing people to educate themselves in an organized intelligent way. A wiki page: "The Most Common Disease of Humans According to Organ System." Could just as easily be the title to "The PANCE Blueprint." I would guess that 99% of people die from something covered on the PANCE Blueprint. 3) It is not a study guide. Study guides are short key points, this is more like: the index of basic medicine, or teaching yourself what every doctor knows. Especially when you consider how extensive most of the wiki articles are that discuss disease processes.

I will post here again when I can show evidence that the PANCE Blueprint is able to be reproduced without copyright issues. If I can do that I would greatly appreciate your help and kindness in getting the Blueprint back. UWPA2013 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sounds good... I think it'd be best if we take a look at this together. Feel free to come up with a draft of what you think would be reasonable to include and put it at your sandbox (i.e., User:UWPA2013/Sandbox); we can go from there. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UWPA2013. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]