User:Drrem

Presentation
Hello from drrem.

I just happened to be "zapping" through Wikipedia when I stumbled upon the pregnancy page. I couldn't help noticing the numerous errors therein (some quite serious, others minor). It then sprang to mind that I might like to check out O/G related pages on Wikipedia for correctness and/or completeness of content. The logical next step was to start editing (which, apart from making me believe I was being constructive, also seemed good fun). Being a newby - to Wikipedia, that is - I admit to having "plodded through" this page quite heavily (there were, and still are, so many things to put right). This got me promptly scolded by others, who kept telling me to reference what I was correcting. OK. Agreed, point taken.

I do wish to share one thought that has come to mind. In view of this hyper-correct attitude I can't, at present, fathom how or why the very same people who are so eager to scold me allowed so many inaccuracies and errors to accumulate, prior to my SO detrimental (?) arrival on the scene, on this page, often without proper reference. Rules must apply to everyone.

I will make an effort to source/reference what I modify. I also reiterate that I fully understand that evidence does need to be profferred. Should I accidentally forget this in future - and that could happen - please do not chastise me as, rest assured, what I am trying to do is always with best intent and to the best of my knowledge.

Unfortunately, I cannot dedicate as much time as I would like to this idea. Despite the lack of sufficient time and despite my afore-mentioned consideration I would still like to help out as much as possible.

The following sites are the best sources for up-to-date high quality O/G information:
www.rcog.org.uk - most of it can be accessed by all;

www.acog.org ;

http://sogc.medical.org ;

www.who.int/topics/pregnancy/en.

Very interesting papers, articles and work in the field of clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology can usually be located in one of the following:

'''Brit. Journ. Obstet. Gynaecol.''',

'''Am. Journ. Obstet. Gynecol.''',

'''Clin. Obstet. Gynecol.''',

'''Eur. Journ. Obstet. Gynecol.''',

'''Brit. Med. Journ.''' and

'''Obstet. and Gynecol.'''.

Thank you.

PS - I'm new at this Wikipedia stuff so please bear with me if I'm not up to scratch with the use of all the functions available.

Please feel free to use my "User talk:Drrem" page
This might make my job on the pregnancy page a little easier (at least I will be able to locate feedback more easily) + I won't need to sift through loads of discussion on pregnancy that has NO CLINICAL MEANING OR SIGNIFICANCE.

List of WKP friends (for what it's worth)
Gillyweed, The Zig

Pointlessness
Beginning to feel like what I am attempting is pointless. Feel like leaving the project and not wasting anymore time. Bit of a shame, really. Anyhow all the best to (almost) everyone, I promise to drop by every now and then.


 * Hey friend, what you are doing is NOT pointless. In fact it is highly valuable.  Can I suggest that you knock off for a week, have a G&T or two and then come back.  I think the flak you have received does breach our policy of "Don't bite the newbies" and you have clearly made moves to apologise for any unattended toes that you might of stepped on.  I think everyone will have forgotten the angst after a week's break.  But we do need people like you here.  We can make a difference to providing good, valuable and encyclopaedic content.  It just takes time to get into the groove.  Take care and read your contributions again soon. Gillyweed (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. It's up to you. Personally, what I'd do if I were you is either (a) take a break, per Gillyweed's advice, or (b) go to a less high priority page for a little while. I think a reason the beavers are so eager is this is a high hit page. If you work on something related, but lower priority, I reckon you'd get far freer rein to knock it into shape. Get the hang of doing all the fancy tricks, links, fancy stuff and references you'll be sorted!
 * And with some recognised good articles behind you, you'll have something to show you know what you're doing when you need to introduce big changes to something important.
 * The Zig (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. and if the same people continue to bite you there, then it'll be pretty clear they're going against both wp:bite and WP:FAITH.

Congratulations - you've learned what the rest of us sane people learned about the wikipidiots a long time ago. Take a few years' break, let this pile of crap "project" die, and I heartily encourage you to contribute to something sane if it ever pops up.


 * Strange comment from an anonymous editor who has made only three edits to WP. I'm looking forward to your return Drrem! Gillyweed (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)