User talk:Drrem

Welcome!

Hello, Drrem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

You have been making some substantial changes to pregnancy related articles, without citing your sources or discussing these changes with other editors. Please slow down and familiarize yourself with our policies before making such edits, especially to high-level articles such as these. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Please discuss your desired changes on the article talk page. While your content may indeed be correct, without a source it is original research. I look forward to your participation on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good work on adding correct and valid information to the Pregnancy article. If you hadn't added it, it'd probably still be dangerously wrong (wronger?!). When I go on about cites it's because I've noticed a definite "delete first, forget about questioning later" trend among many editors when it comes to uncited changes. In their mind, they're doing Wikipedia a favour, as they cut out a lot of the crap/urban legends that gullible people tap in. But it does mean a lot of good stuff gets deleted, and a lot of old stuff goes unchallenged, because things are reverted before anyone gets a chance to source them (which almost happened to what you added). If you have time, have a glance at WP:CITE. Anyway, since I reckon you know your stuff, I will try to help out wherever I can. And good luck. (Though, be aware my knowledge on this subject is mostly limited to what I've picked up since my wife got pregnant!)

If I have time, and the sources from your user page can be used to support it, I'll try to help out with writing this preterm/premature stuff into the article, maybe we can also get the "premature", "postmature" wikipedia pages renamed and improved too (though, again to stress, this is if we have good sources to push through the change.) Cheers, The Zig (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS. It does make a difference if someone shows even a tiny bit of appreciation instead of just automatically seeing what you've taken time and trouble to correct, according to sound EBM principles, getting hacked back to the former version. O/G is my field of expertise so I do not care too much ("euphemism") for getting challenged by Tom, Dick or Harry just because I've changed something. Change, when it represents real improvement, is good and should not be feared just because something new has happened. This is pretty much what I'm trying to do. I see that some people, as yourself, have managed to understand this, but I do get the impression that "the editors" just couldn't give a hoot.

It is in no way my intention to try to upset anyone but I have been getting a lot of negative feedback from people that obviously haven't a clue about pregnancy; just because thay are experts in the field of editing they seem to feel that they can simply revert anything that pleases them. From what I've just said it is clear that I believe that editing would be best left to people who at least have SOME knowledge in the field of the subject that they are treating. For example I would never dream of editing a highly specific pages such as "Benjamin Disraeli's family line" etc, etc, where I obviously wouldn't have any idea.Drrem (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and any help that you might want to give.

PS How do I answer a message without actually using the edit function?

I don't think you can answer without using the 'edit' function. I may be wrong though, I've only been on WP about a month, so I'm still quite a newbie myself.

I hope you don't mind, but I just changed your latest edit on the pregnancy article. I've said why in the talk page, but in a nut-shell, I put the reference you mentioned into a footnote, and restored your older version (the one there before KillerChihuahua last reverted it). I modified the wording a touch to fit a source I found. I think it's now both correct and supported, so maybe it'll sit! Though have a look and check I didn't introduce any errors (assuming it hasn't been changed again since my last edit!)

If you do choose to answer me again btw, it'd probably be better to answer to my talk page that way I get told I have a message. I only saw this one because I came here to tell you I'd changed the article.

Oh, and I took out that bit about lunar months too - that was just daft!

Cheers, The Zig (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy refs

You may find this resource helpful in creating references. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
--Drrem (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-references

Hi, just a friendly reminder in association with your edit at Symptom, that per Avoid self references, Wiktionary is not suitable as a reference in Wikipedia articles. Best regards, — BillC ^talk 16:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't realise there was this limitation. I'm sure you appreciate that it was a genuine mistake, just that I'm trying my hardest to state that symptom doesn't NECESSARILY imply disease, just the SELF-PERCEPTION OF AN ALTERED STATE OF BEING.
--Drrem (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy

Hi, as an uninvolved editor, I recommend that you don't make edits like this one which is borderline vandalism. Regardless of what disputes you are having about the wording, edits like this are not called for. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir, but if you check my contribution to date I think you will find some interesting stuff; I believe I've been helping out more than a little.
On this basis alone, I don't think ANYONE can accuse me of vandalism.
I will furthermore add that upon receiving an invite to rectify this very edit you will notice that I promptly righted it. Why bring this up 24 hours after my correction? To what avail?
Were I a vandal, my behaviour would have been different. I fully realise that the world is full of vandals and that some newbies will behave as vandals but why is everyone around here SO aggressive towards well-meaning newbies, such as myself? Is it SO difficult to distinguish between well-meaning newbies and the vandalic element?
As regards the future, I would like to further help out in this project but I don't particularly care for the hostility shown me; quite honestly I also don't care for people reverting the scientifically sound things I'm trying to add, on the basis of it not being referenced, just to go back to non referenced drivel. Why not just add "citation needed" or some thingy to that effect, without deleting it entirely? That might give me, or someone else, a chance to add the necessary references. Otherwise I have many other things to be getting on with and will gladly wish all the WKP "expert" editors all the best with their project. Thanking you for your kind attention.
--Drrem (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I can't help noticing you are taking a bit of flak from some of the long term editors around here. I think you expertise will be highly beneficial for the project and thus I'd like you to hang around. However, may I make a few suggestions? I understand that they will be frustrating to an enthusiastic editor who sees major problems in an article, but it's the sort of apprenticeship that you have to do to gain respect as an editor.

Firstly, avoid claiming you are an expert in the subject matter. This really irritates people and the reason why is that many of us have seen experts fly in and make wholesale changes on the basis of their knowledge, which may not be up to date. I am not suggesting that you are like that, but the medical field seems to be chock-a-block of non-evidence based practice. Thus humbly go about your editing, providing a reference for your changes or if you don't have a handy ref, explain the change in the edit box or talk page.

Secondly, hasten slowly. Make minor changes and see how they go. Argue them out respectfully and politely even if you are frustrated and irritated by the problem.

Thirdly, let go. If your edits are reverted you can get into a reversion war which is both boring and stressful or leave it for a while and come back a week later with a reasoned change.

Fourthly, have a sense of humour about this place. Life is sullen enough without it continuing here.

Your points in your reply above are quite salient. People should put 'fact' tags on unreferenced material. Indeed, that's a really good way to go with editing. One strategy is to run through an article and stick a 'fact' tag on every claim that seems inaccurate. Then leave the article for a week and come back and delete the material that is unreferenced. You might also wish to give a warning on the talk page that this is what you will do.

Now I know that this all sounds very boring, but this is a consensus based encyclopaedia and it is only through consensus that you win. I have been editing here for some three years now or so (previously anonymously) and I can tell you that in the end, evidence-based material wins out in the end! Keep smiling, enjoy your time here and if I can be of any assistance, drop me a note on my talk page. Gillyweed (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GW, you are a friend. Thanks for the much appreciated advice. (Is "a bit of flak" a euphemism?) ;)
--Drrem (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Gilly's advice, it's quite good. Also, the high dudgeon bit, and the poor innocent victim bit work neither here nor in real life. You also seem prone to violating WP:NPA (whether knowlingly or not), so please read the policy. If you're here to improve ob/gyn articles, you'll be welcomed, but lording your (unverifiable) credentials over other editors will have an effect opposite of that which you desire. BTW, OM is also an MD, so don't be too dismissive. Jim62sch 22:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GW,s advice is sound and much appreciated (more than quite good). I am here to improve OG articles, as I have already, elsewhere, pointed out. I am not angry and I do not think of myself as a poor innocent victim BUT I am miffed at the level of aggression; is that strange? I have removed my (unverifiable) credentials from my user page as this was obviously irritating you and a few others.
--Drrem (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not irritating per se, but listing creds certainly could seem, in concert with the forcefulness of your comments on talk pages, to be an argumentum ad verecundiam-style gambit. Jim62sch 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've apologized to her/him in an email or other area for the flak you and others gave on the pregnacy page. Sigh. Running off knowledgable people is not a good thing, don't you think? ←Gee♥Alice 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustly accused of making personal attacks

Just been to WP:NPA

You have suggested that I am prone to making personal attacks.

Just for the record, I honestly believe I haven't made any (I'm probably mistaken); on the other hand I'm sure you would agree, would you not, that I have been subjected to many.

Please illustrate the personal attacks I have made so as I can avoid them in the future.

If you are refering to the bit about "eager beavers" on my user page I will only be too happy to remove it. Shame, though, because if this is the case, I must have hit a nerve.
--Drrem (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came in late to the pregnancy article and saw some problems you were having. I'm sorry you had to experience that. You were correct in changing the "complications" to complaints. I hope you don't leave, and do not let that experience prevent you from contributing further. I think that article was written by men, men that have no expertise in obstetrics. Perhaps they meant there are "complications" for them, if you know what I mean. :p ←Gee♥Alice 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

Publish an article to the journal.
Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
Join the editorial board.
Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
- Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]