User talk:TransfusionDoctor

AfC notification: Draft:Red cell transfusion has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Red cell transfusion. Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Red cell transfusion (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Blood transfusion. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Red cell transfusion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! TransfusionDoctor, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Carl Fredrik^talk 14:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connect to discuss

If you want to connect and discuss please let me know :-) Welcome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be helpful. I am based in the UK, let me know when might be convenientTransfusionDoctor (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have sent you an email.

By the way per WP:LEAD what is in the lead also typically occurs in the body of the article aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. I will keep on correcting the fact that platelets aren't cross-matched, they try to match them but they are not cross-matched, red cells are cross-matched TransfusionDoctor (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, good point thanks. They are simple matched rather than cross matched. I work shift work so the hours I am awake are variable. Will likely be up this time tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I have not had internet access. Are you free next week to discuss at all?TransfusionDoctor (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Hazards of Transfusion has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, TransfusionDoctor. Serious Hazards of Transfusion, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in training physicians to add content to WP

I am not certain if you received an answer to your question about receiving help in training physicians in adding content to WP. If you still need answers, please contact me on my talk page.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Serious Hazards of Transfusion

On 13 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serious Hazards of Transfusion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the UK organization Serious Hazards of Transfusion discourages hospitals from using some blood products donated by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Serious Hazards of Transfusion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Blood management

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages http://www.isbtweb.org/working-parties/clinical-transfusion/1-potential-benefits-to-patients-and-the-healthcare-system/ and http://www.isbtweb.org/working-parties/clinical-transfusion/2-establishing-and-implementing-a-pbm-strategy/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TransfusionDoctor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Blood management, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further information on conflict of interest and copyright

Hello TransfustionDoctor. Thank you for your interest in working on wikipedia. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. There are a couple of problems with your submission. You cannot post copyright material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see Wikipedia:donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.

The second problem is conflict of interest. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. I have placed some information about conflict of interest in the section above. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pre operative optimization haemoglobin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pre operative optimization haemoglobin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.isbtweb.org/working-parties/clinical-transfusion/3-pre-operative-optimisation-of-haemoglobin/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations and close paraphrasing

I am replying to the message you left on my talk page which said: "I have permission to use the public access ISBT resources to assist in populating the wikipedia. I had done quite a lot of paraphrasing of this work but want to know how I can pass the copyright issue when these are freely accessible sources that I have been given permission to write and in some cases written myself".

You need to have a look at WP:COPYPASTE and also the advice that Diannaa has pointed you in the direction of. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your email

As soon as the permission email is received and processed the content can be restored. There's a large backlog at present, so please be patient. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Transfusion practitioner

Hello TransfusionDoctor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Transfusion practitioner for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming choosingwisely.org and its national extension sites

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Choosing Wisely shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

You're citing things of the form "X exists, source, website of X". Instead please use reliable independent secondary sources that establish the importance of the fact you wish to add. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TransfusionDoctor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

page:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TransfusionDoctor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Awareness of copyright rules related to facts and mathematical formulae

Decline reason:

I do not find the explanation satisfactory. Please read more about copyright violations and briefly explain the policy in your own words. Also please indicate what it is you want to edit about and how you will not do the same things wrong in the future. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I realised I had copied a list of facts from a table, turned it into a bullet point list and added additional facts. I did not reference each fact individually within the list and although the order and number of facts in the list had changed it might have been seen as copyright infringement because of my initial cutting and pasting of the list of facts and formulae.

I realise now that I cannot copy a list of facts from elsewhere on the internet and have to rewrite the list again and add additional references to show the list has come from multiple sources of information. I will not do this again. TransfusionDoctor (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. This gores beyond copying a list. You also copied copyright prose to the same article from at least two other sources, here and here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re potential copyright infringement

Thank you for highlighting the overlaps. I can see how this appears as though I copied from these other papers but I did not copy the text. One of the papers, the Elsevier text, I have never even read but because of the large number of technical terms used and the way scientists write text there is overlap. The two other texts I know very well and so despite not wanting to copy the text I have accidentally done this. How can I avoid this in the future. If there is a piece of text that cannot be phrased any other way does putting it in quotation marks avoid the problem. I tried very hard on this entry to avoid copyright issues and spent over a day writing the text so want to avoid putting in a huge amount of effort and ending up with the same result of being accused of copyright infringement.

Is there a way of checking that I have not infringed copyright by accident? For example the paper I have never even read but apparently copied. Thank you for letting me know TransfusionDoctor (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. You told me by email that you had permission from the copyright holder to copy their material. Now you are saying you copied by accident? They can't both be correct. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Sorry for confusing you. The thing I would like clarification on is how am I supposed to know that I have written something in the same way as someone else without ever seeing their work (Elsevier publication you highlighted).

Also, in the future if I want to use part of a sentence that is the same I assume I can avoid copyright issues by putting the section in quotation marks with associated reference?

The Stanworth et al publication I had permission from the original authors to re-use their work. However, looking through the copyright rules in more detail I have also asked the publishers Wiley for authorisation to reuse on Wikipedia. This would be permission to use up to a page of text from the published review and maximum of 400 continuous words from the original review.

For the NHSBT publication I have authorisation from the original author to re-use their work.

I do not want to infringe copyright and with very technical medical language it is often difficult or impossible to rephrase parts of sentences without changing the meaning which is why I am asking the advice about putting sections in quotations marks if I know they have been used previously and how I manage something if I never knew someone else had written it in exactly the same way. TransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way I write is by reading the source, understanding what the source means, and than writing down that understanding in my own words in easy to understand language.

By writing in easy to understand language, that will make sure you will not be to close to the original. I write generally one or two sentences from a source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doc James

Thank you for your advice.

I realise now that some material that was too similar to the original sources and I will fully paraphrase going forwards.

I will use plain and easy to understand language whenever I can and keep technical terms to the minimum necessary.

TransfusionDoctor (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User:Diannaa have chatted with User:TransfusionDoctor and they agree to be much more careful going forwards. Transfusion one should never use the copy and paste function when working from a source as that can easily get one in trouble. Diannaa I think it is reasonable to give them another chance. I am willing to do spot checks on their work to make sure no further problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

unblock | reason= I have spoken with DocJames who has helped me understand my errors regarding copyright. I will fully paraphrase going forward and make sure that I use simple and easy to use language whenever possible. I thank DocJames for any help he provides going forwards to make sure this happens TransfusionDoctor (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TransfusionDoctor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see above

Accept reason:

TransfusionDoctor appears to understand the gravity of the issue in question and has agreed not to repeat. Accepting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]