User talk:Lcwilsie

helpme Is there any recourse when a WP editor is non-productive and personally attacking other editors? We are having extreme difficulty moving the homebirth page forward because one (anonymous) editor automatically reverts every new edit. Several of us are striving to make the article NPOV - which it is not - but every change is reverted. At the same time, he/she makes no contributions other than to attack people in the discussion. No suggestions on improving the article, no contribution to the text. One quote of many: Gillyweed is a homebirth midwife (or partner of same), who thinks that he can tell everyone what's what because he's some minor wikipedia editor. He lacks the intellectual faculty to understand the literature surrounding this subject, as evidenced by his putting the recent BJOG study (yet another fairly useless observational unmatched "cohort" study in a failing maternity system with some of the worst outcomes in Europe) at the top of the safety section in a previous edit. If the neutrality board had seen this article before I started bringing some semblance of balance and order, they'd have been even more shocked. This article was truly laughable then, rather than the fairly rubbish one we have now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.167.125 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Lcwilsie (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

helpme Is it appropriate to use a book review as a reference source? Please see the "Critics of Natural Childbirth" section of natural childbirth Reference #4.
 * As a primary source, probably not, but to add a some info it is probably fine. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work and a suggestion
Hi, great work on the Natural Childbirth page. I am most happy to work with you on it (as hopefully you can see). Can I make a minor suggestion. Do you note how your user page link is red? Can you please put something on this page, anything really. This will reduce the likelihood of your material being deleted as vandalism or reverted. You might consider a few user boxes or something. Strangely enough this does give you credibility on WP. Have a look at my user page for examples. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Hopefully you won't mind that I stole the banner from your talk page! It seems very useful. Lcwilsie (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I would have pinched it from someone else! Gillyweed (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
There's a reply for you on my talk page. WLU (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Home Birth
Hi, I'd appreciate any assistance you can offer in combatting the single-minded and non-evidence based attack on the home birth article by the West Australian anonymous editor. As a scientist, any material you can provide on his (I assume it's a bloke) data analysis would be appreciated. Gillyweed (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh. This individual has been difficult. I haven't looked in a few days...I'll keep a better eye on the page. I'll also try to dig up some references, but a lot of the information is in journals I don't have access to. Lcwilsie (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly! Gillyweed (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the home birth debate. I appreciate your reasoned and reasonable approach.  You will note that I have not put my oar in for a while.  I have been holding back because of the personal attacks against me and it just makes me feel stressed!  I guess I should gird my loins and return again soon.  In the meantime, thank you again. Gillyweed (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's certainly a lesson in perseverence. I am certainly striving for something balanced with the article, and it is frustrating to be maligned as an extremist for trying to keep an open mind. Lcwilsie (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well having you back has persuaded me to return. It's much easier with two of us!  I too want to make this a balanced article.  I think I shall simply ignore the Barbs being tossed at me! Gillyweed (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we revert the anon editor's comments unless s/he provides a reasoned (and non abusive rationale) on which we can achieve consensus? Otherwise, this editor's behaviour is simply bullying and abusive behaviour designed to intimidate rather than achieve a good article.  If we only partially revert his stuff he is ending up fragmenting the article and making it much harder for us to improve it.  This editor is also getting close to being in trouble with WP:3RR which we too need to be careful about. Gillyweed (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am preparing a note to post to Wikiquette about the editor. There is too much history of abuse, and it doesn't seem that anyone or any comment is acceptable to him. I'll focus on that for now, and ignore the article for a bit. You're right - his edits are causing more problems than we can easily deal with. I agree that his comments are aimed at scaring off editors so that he can do as he pleases with the article. Lcwilsie (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a good post you put on his talk page. I notice that once again he ignored it. Arrogant or what? What is Wikiquette? I'm sorry that Nandesuka decided to freeze the anon's version of the article. I guess I shall just have to be patient! Have a good evening. Gillyweed (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching for antagonism - so far he/she has toned it down as far as actually attacking people, so I'm holding off on reporting him/her. Still not understanding the WP goal of working together, serving more as a final stamp of approval/disapproval. I notice a lot of talk pages deal with much discussion of the editors' attempts to work together rather than just the topic at hand. "wikiquette" is the etiquette page, and there is a complaint board for various complaints. The links are on 202's talk page, don't know them off the top of my head. Thanks for your continued work with this article! Lcwilsie (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And he's now back and just as aggressive as always! I'm trying to get Astynax involved.  Astynax is anti-HB but s/he is at least civilized about it.  I wonder if we simply move ahead as you suggest and simply ignore/revert the anon's edits.  Can we outlast him? Gillyweed (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's wise to ignore/revert. I think we have to resolve this. Did you see my comments on the WP:WQA page? Hopefully someone will help, although from comments I've read on other civility complaints, it doesn't appear all that useful. Although we might outlast him, it will be far more work that way. Besides, I'm tired of hashing safety. I'd much rather be writing the interesting parts of the article, but they get caught up in the safety reverts, and anything about homebirth is inherently going to be "biased" unless every other sentance is about how a baby died. BTW - any suggestions on books to read to bolster the article? I have Ina May's books but they're only moderately useful. I'm looking into obtaining some UC books and books by Kitzinger, Eisenstein, and Cairns. Any favorites? Lcwilsie (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see you comments. Nicely put.  And you are right of course, we should try and resolve this using proper WP channels.  Thank you for your efforts to date.  Books by Kitizinger are great (but they will be attacked as she is an anthropologist and not an obstetrician!).  I like Marsden Wagner's "Pursuing the Birth Machine" and Henci Goer's "Obstetric Myths, Research Realities" both of which are good on evidence.  Experiential books are "Having a Great Birth in Australia" and "Men at Birth" which I suspect you can't get your way.  These give some excellent perspectives on HB (including a death or two - so they are balanced!), but they explain in depth why women choose HB.  Those who choose HB are invariably more up-to-date about risks and research than those who don't choose HB.  HB is chosen for more complex reasons other than safety.  It would be good to draw this out.  However, when some of the editors are focussed purely on safety then these broader philosophical reasons for choosing HB get debased.  Pardon my ignorance but what is UC?   I am now going to gird my loins and revert to the pre-Nandesuka protected version.  Let's see where that gets us!  Gillyweed (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good approach on the BJOG article. And I shall take the reprimand from you about reverting.  Thanks for sticking with the article. Gillyweed (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

re: many thanks
No problem, just struck me as a large removal of content without explanation, and (from the previous reverts) without consensus. I see it's much larger then I thought at first ;), keep up your work with that page :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward on HB
Hi, we seem to have a breathing space from our anon running 'interference' on creating a good neutral article. Let's get it up to scratch with some good work now. What do you think our priorities should be. You seem to attract less animosity than I do. Would you like to tackle the safety section as discussed on the talk page? I'm better at the history and perhaps the less contentious stuff! Gillyweed (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm a lot less interested in the safety section - I'd like to leave it alone for a bit. I think the recent debates have worn me out on that topic! I have a reading list that I'm slowly making my way through, and will contribute throughout the homebirth and natural childbirth articles as I come across relevant information. I hope to focus on expanding the article (like the factors in choosing homebirth), should I find sources that would support that. And I'm not so sure we have breathing space as that our anon editor has gone silent until his/her ban is lifted. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's just work incrementally on it then and hopefully not spend too much time doing battle! Gillyweed (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)