User talk:Ninanoof

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Bedbug has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 07:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, already numerous WP:NOTHOW violations in bedbug, but ....

You're correct: this article already contains instructions about techniques like barrier strategies. The bulk of the article used to read that way. However, that doesn't make it right. Some of us have been working on removing that kind of thing. If you'd like to work on a How-To Guide for bedbug eradication (a special interest of mine, because I run an inn where we've had persistent problems), there's always Wikibooks. Yakushima (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted an entire section you added on nesting locations, as if there weren't already an entire section on nesting locations. Read the whole article before adding anything. It used to be much longer, and much redundant. You're restoring it to that unfortunate state. There is already plenty of HOW-TO info on bedbugs on the web. Wikipedia doesn't need to be another one, and by policy WP:HOWTO, actually shouldn't be another one. Yakushima (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] change, which I'm about to revert, is redundant: the article already talks about this kind of thing. Consider: is your goal to help people who have bedbug infestations? Those people often feel very overwhelmed. The last thing they need is an overwhelming Wikipedia article. Keep the verbiage down. Yakushima (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted almost all WP:NOTHOW violations, not just yours. I've tagged the article as still containing some violations (since there probably are some). Please read WP:NOTHOW. That policy was enacted for a reason. If you want to write something to help people get rid of bedbugs, consider WikiHow [2] and Wikibooks [3], as Wikipedia's own policy suggests. Also consider this: dozens, if not hundreds, of how-to guides already exist (including the two you repeatedly cite). They were sponsored and promoted by city, county, state and national authorities and universities. There is no shortage of such how-to information, written by professionals drawing upon authoritative sources. If you think you can improve on such work, nobody will stop you from trying at Wikibooks or Wikihow. If you insist that Wikipedia must be the place to improve on those sources, however, somebody (with actual administrative power) will stop you. Yakushima (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I'm glad all of this has motivated you to clean-up the long standing mess of your topic.

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]