Hello, NPTruth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Click the "view source" tab (which replaces "edit" tab) from there you'll see a link that will guide you to submit edit request directly. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely frustrated. The page for Nurse Practitioner (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_practitioner) and it’s talk page are locked. I can’t add a topic to the talk page nor respond to anything. This is ludicrous that pages that are supposed to define and provide evidence through well sourced references are being held hostage for no apparent reason. NPTruth (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me as I am completely frustrated. The page for Nurse Practitioner (Nurse practitioner) and it’s talk page are locked. I can’t add a topic to the talk page nor respond to anything. This is ludicrous that pages that are supposed to define and provide evidence through well sourced references are being held hostage for no apparent reason. How does one "build consensus" if every edit is automatically rejected despite very concrete reasons as to why they should take place (i.e. from credible vs. non-credible sources).
NPTruth (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page protection is only temporary, and will be gone within 24 hours(depending on where you are). It is unusual to protect a talk page, but there seems to have been an issue with spamming on it. I see that your only edits have been to Talk:Nurse practitioner and to this page, and you have a username that suggests you have some sort of specific purpose in being here other than an interest in being a Wikipedia contributor. Instead of accusing others of holding things hostage, you should collaborate with others to achieve a consensus as to what the article should say. If there is some sort of intractable dispute, there are avenues of dispute resolution open to you. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should comment on your connection to the editors Shamachen (talk·contribs), HEALTH IS-A TEAM SPORT (talk·contribs), Raraavis31 (talk·contribs), Cleight (talk·contribs) and so on. That so many brand-new editors independently come to the same article's talk page at the same time to make the same point is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely, and a concerted effort to change Wikipedia content by sheer weight of numbers is disruptive. See WP:COWORKER for the relevant policy (which doesn't just apply to coworkers in the strict sense). Huon (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You Huon (talk·contribs) should not assume that I know those editors and I don't. Perhaps you should consider that the 270,000 nurse practitioners across the U.S. are aware of this mockery of an entry and are attempting to set the record straight. Have a great night!! NPTruth (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2019
You don't have to know any other editors for there to be a coordinated effort to influence the article's content. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only "coordination" are the people who actually are educated and licensed in that role calling out the mistruths. What if the Police (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) entry made an outlandish statement such as "police in rural areas are not as well prepared as city police" or "state police get more hours of training than city police" or "police training is 1% of military training." The article cites poor references to opinion pieces and low quality studies to justify the denigration of the profession and the many calls for correction -- going back years -- have largely been ignored. Yes, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing however, that shouldn't preclude anyone from suggesting legitimate and well sourced rationale for edits. Thank you for your time. NPTruth (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
