I would have replied directly to the message, but I just signed up to the list. Anyway, this person created an article containing "Arguably, a better name for the article on Evidence_Based_Medicine Evidence Based Medicine." This is not encyclopedic. He left a message on my talk page and I had written up a response to him stating that if he wanted to move it, he should sign up for an account and move it, that the article space is not the place for his opinion regarding the title of articles. As I went to reply, I got an edit conflict on his user talk page in which he decided to call me "cryptodork".
Derk wrote:
I would have replied directly to the message, but I just signed up to the list. Anyway, this person created an article containing "Arguably, a better name for the article on Evidence_Based_Medicine Evidence Based Medicine." This is not encyclopedic. He left a message on my talk page and I had written up a response to him stating that if he wanted to move it, he should sign up for an account and move it, that the article space is not the place for his opinion regarding the title of articles. As I went to reply, I got an edit conflict on his user talk page in which he decided to call me "cryptodork".
And so you banned the guy? Perhaps a little quick on the block button there... one (mildish) comment, and a newbie mistake on what to do with a misnamed page really isn't blockable IMO. Perhaps it's time to revisit [[WP:BITE]]
--sannse
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 18:49 +0100, sannse wrote:
Derk wrote:
I would have replied directly to the message, but I just signed up to the list. Anyway, this person created an article containing "Arguably, a better name for the article on Evidence_Based_Medicine Evidence Based Medicine." This is not encyclopedic.
Stub? Disambigution page?
He left a
message on my talk page and I had written up a response to him stating that if he wanted to move it, he should sign up for an account and move it, that the article space is not the place for his opinion regarding the title of articles.
That isn't the topic, and it isn't my opinion, it arises form a discussion on an academic list (evidence-based-health@jiscmail.ac.uk which for non-UK people is the joint information services ctee for all UK universities and is populated by people who know far more about EBM/EBH than I but are less au fait with Wikis) upon the definition of EBM. The opinion you'd gather is that EBM is better refered to a subclass of EBH
As I went to reply, I got an edit
conflict on his user talk page in which he decided to call me "cryptodork".
Sorry. Not used to American names and spelling. We usually spell a name Dirk.
And so you banned the guy? Perhaps a little quick on the block button there... one (mildish) comment, and a newbie mistake on what to do with a misnamed page really isn't blockable IMO. Perhaps it's time to revisit [[WP:BITE]]
--sannse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
<snip>
He left a
message on my talk page and I had written up a response to him stating that if he wanted to move it, he should sign up for an account and move it, that the article space is not the place for his opinion regarding the title of articles.
That isn't the topic, and it isn't my opinion, it arises form a discussion on an academic list (evidence-based-health@jiscmail.ac.uk which for non-UK people is the joint information services ctee for all UK universities and is populated by people who know far more about EBM/EBH than I but are less au fait with Wikis) upon the definition of EBM. The opinion you'd gather is that EBM is better refered to a subclass of EBH
<snip>
I didn't look at the EBM/EBH pages and I'm not debating or really concerned with what goes where. None of this has anything to do with whether or not I (or we) agree with what a page should be called. If you want to move one page to another location, sign up for an account and do it (since page moves are restricted to logged in users). The point is that writing in an article "So and so page should be here" is not something that belongs in the article space. If you wanted it moved, you could have moved it yourself, written a note on a talk page, dropped a note on the "requested moves" page, asked an editor of the EBM/EBH pages on their talk page about moving it, etc. Feel free to do any of these.
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 14:54 -0400, Derk wrote: sensibly, thanks
I didn't look at the EBM/EBH pages and I'm not debating or really concerned with what goes where. None of this has anything to do with whether or not I (or we) agree with what a page should be called.
I think a page on evidence based medicine can quite reasonably be called that, but it will not be found by a search for Evidence based health.
A page called evidence based health will be.
If it points to the other page that seemed to be to be useful. Still does.
(And if I had been offering an opinion that the page name should be different, be sure that that is what I would have written, and note I have in the past made comments on discussion pages for Smallpox etc).)
Here is (part of) my model, of how I think the wiki works ----------------------------------------------- If a page called "EB health" only has a pointer to one called "EB medicine" then my suspicion is that the first academic nurse (or Physio, clinical psychologist, occ therapist, radiographer or healthcare service commissioner or manager that happens upon it might feel inclined to add a piece on evidence based practice in their specific field.
If in due course someone notices that there is a big article on EBM with little articles on EBN and EB Physio etc, then they might well, if they are wise in the ways of the wiki and not subject to interruption, decide to conflate them into one article, and make the other pages whatever you call a page that just tells you where to go instead.
The most likely person to do that sort of thing is someone who looks at the structure of the wiki rather than the content of the pages. Presumably, an administrator.
If you want to move one page to another location,
Don't, didn't, said so before.
sign up for an account and do it (since page moves are restricted to logged in users). The point is that writing in an article "So and so page should be here"
Didn't.
is not something that belongs in the article space. If you wanted it moved, you could have moved it yourself, written a note on a talk page, dropped a note on the "requested moves" page, asked an editor of the EBM/EBH pages on their talk page about moving it, etc. Feel free to do any of these.
What I want(ed) was for someone looking for an article on Evidence Based Health to find the material that exists.
The reaction was excessive, poorly considered and rude (unless I'm doing a language thing and "vandal" is a term meaning "you have done something I don't agree with" in American. The ones I know are neat and polite people, so it probably means about the smae as it does in English.
And the account of it is drifting.
Adrian Midgley wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english:
What I want(ed) was for someone looking for an article on Evidence Based Health to find the material that exists.
the correct way to do this is with a redirect.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Redirect
kate.
Adrian Midgley wrote:
What I want(ed) was for someone looking for an article on Evidence Based Health to find the material that exists.
This isn't the first time I hear a newbie was "bitten" just because they didn't know how to create a redirect. When I was new, the same happened to me; I created the page [[Extrema]], writing "Plural of [[Extremum]]". The proper response should have been to turn it into a redirect, but instead an overzealous sysop just deleted the page.
I think sysops need to learn to recognise what kinds of contributions should really be redirects (as opposed to deleted, much less blocked), and to actually turn them into redirects.
Timwi