This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
We have five articles fully translated by me. All of them are alreay live, just waiting to be reviewed, since I'm no expert in the medical field. One of them (hypertension) was reviewed by the volunteer at TWB workspace, and I already uploaded the final version. The others are pending review at TWB... for more than a month. Maybe the volunteer is short on time, but would be nice if we could find a second volunteer, otherwise this will take years. There's still more than ten articles to be translated. I can and would like to translate them right away. Meanwhile I found someone on the field than can review them. But I suppose every text has to pass through TWB workplace, am I wrong? Polyethylen (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is that the only issue? Seem very easy to address. Simply state the source and the version it is from. Why would this be justification for deletion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ja:デング熱 was requested for deletion by a hasty user (vote for delete: ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/デング熱), but User:Ks aka 98 took care of it, so it seems to be kept in the end. ja:デング熱 v2 was speedy-deleted because it was a duplicate of ja:デング熱; the author, User:Samirabiem, was blocked (assumed as a vandal user) because of this creation of duplicated article which contained the same problem as the original one. But I feel VERY UNEASY about WHO "hired a translation to help translating from English into japanese". It sounds very strange to me.--miya (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi from JAWP. The deletion request is still in progress, the texts submitted by ja:User:Samirabiem would be recovered after closing the RfD anyway. But the case seems becoming complicated since Samirabiem and ja:User:Samirabiem2 (provably the two are the same person) continue to submit their texts. Could you please tell them to be patient for a while? Some users in JAWP are trying to resolve this case. Hope Samirabiem and others can communicate smoothly. Thanks, --Calvero JP (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James. Just so you know, I restored Samirabiem's translation and incorporated the pre-existing text into it. So far nobody has complained about it. (I mean they shouldn't have in the first place...) Overall her translation was excellent, but I needed to fix a lot of styling issues.
In case Samirabiem or the IP user is reading this, she seems to have had zero experience in Wikipedia editing. That itself is completely fine, but she was supposed to ask for help when she didn't know what to do. If anyone can reach her (she hasn't responded to my inquiry so far), please encourage her to communicate with her fellow editors. Thanks. --Bugandhoney (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes learning how to edit Wikipedia for the first time can be complicated. I am encouraging everyone to get involved and engage with experienced editors to figure out how things work. Many thanks for getting involved and fixing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my contribution to Gonorrhea and for pruning the WHO quote taken from the New Yorker. I suspected at the time that I was placing too fine a point on the issue of it becoming a superbug/epidemic. --Waldhorn (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit because, well, the original text read very strangely. As a medically minded man, do you happen to know if it reports the issue accurately? If not, can you reword? Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I'm not butting in... I feel Ironholds has raised a really useful point about this page, which at various points seemed to be trying 'pathologize' a condition which, in itself, is wholly physiological. I've taken the the liberty to revise accordingly, and have removed the content Ironholds pointed out, which wasn't reliably sourced ("Pradhan et al., 2007" might have been a conference presentation in some form? [2]). Given the physiological status of the condition, I've also boldly retitled the 'Treatment' and 'Prognosis' sections as 'Clinical Considerations'. However, I'm not sure what sort of weight [3] to give to some of the more theoretical concerns that get raised ([4][5][6][7] etc). To my knowledge (bona fide WP:OR), no epidemiological study of occupational risk factors for life-threatening arrhythmias is available. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I met you at Wikimania this year, I did the Wikipedia town, Monmouth. I heard from Bluerasberry about the possible WHO Wikipedian in residence, I'd be interested to know more as I'm talking to someone about something similar (very early stages) and think it would really complement. Happy to talk off wiki if you prefer, john@gibraltarpedia.org Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I would prefer your messages were more professional, rather than imposing your decisions on others. But thank you for sending me the link to the Cochrane review.
I am aware that the use of rVIIa is not licenced for non-haemophiliacs. However its use is still part of the management protocol or management options for massive haemorrhage in trauma in cases where repeat transfusions are being utilised.
Its use is documented in many clinical guidelines and websites, and although, as you point out, this guidance is probably eminence based, rather than evidence based, for this group of patients there are few other options. I feel its inclusion in the diagram allows users to undertake their own reading in this area.
For example this is a 2011 clinical guideline including rviia. Trauma.org still contains details advice on its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim101 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy giving such prominence to rFVIIa when the evidence does not support it. Happy to discuss but the refs given was a 2003 guideline which per WP:MEDRS is a little old. The new one from 2011 is better. Feel free to ask for further input at WT:MEDDoc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of trauma.org was "There was no significant difference in mortality in the two groups" (ones who got the stuff versus placebo). This ladder does not reflect the above 2011 guideline IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree there is little evidence base, it is current practice, endorsed by the UK NHS, and possibly multiple other institutions (I am aware the US Military used to have it in their protocol - this may have changed). In light of this, I feel it is counter-productive to remove it. Do you have any sources stating it is contraindicated, or banned for other reasons for patients with massive haemorrhage? Tannim101 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not recommended for general use per the Cochrane paper and is controversial at best. Does not deserve such prominence without any qualifications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tool to check for questionable text in articles
What was the name of (and can you link to) the tool that highlights suspect text in articles? Thanks and thanks for the note about recombinant factor VIIa. Biosthmors (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful thanks. This was lead by User:Manum56 who I began collaborating with before I went to India. He did an excellent job. Hopefully we will see his group getting more involved in Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]