Talk:Automated wearable artificial kidney

Comment by Limjason
Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and have not fully understood the rules and regulations of writing here. Please guide me on how i should write my article proper. Please guide me on how to remove my duplicated pictures. Thank you so much. Limjason (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow the advice on your talk page. Read the welcome notice and the pages linked there. Read the conflict of interest notice and the pages linked there. You are currently undergoing a conflict of interest review. You may wish to review your options at WP:COI and WP:BFAQ regarding what, if any, information you may want to disclose about yourself. Heed the warnings you were given and leave the issue tags alone. The duplicated images have already been removed. Don't add them again. Thanks for your interest in contributing to the wiki! Chaldor (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. Just to clarify, i do not have direct links with the company. I am a dialysis patient who is excited about this technology which could save and change lives of many kidney patients. I have read a lot about this technology online and wanted to share the news with the rest of the dialysis community. I linked the site to other relevant pages and did not realise it was considered spamming and was not allowed to do so. I am deeply sorry about that. I just hope this article can still be a stand alone as this technology can educate more of the dialysis patients like me. Please do not remove this article. I will read up of the COI article and change it as best as i can. Thank you so much Chaldor for your deep understanding. Limjason (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem! Everyone has a little difficulty starting out at first. Thanks for your contributions and your interest! You might want to state that you have no affiliation with the company on your talk page as a reply to the COI notice I left you. As I'm sure you've seen, I have made some significant edits to the article you started. It was reading too much like an advertisement and was not balanced. The AWAK term itself (though it may be a neologism) is not only limited to the device invented by the UCLA researchers, but also to all the other devices that have been created over the last fourty years like it. Additionally, peritoneal dialysis is not the only way an AWAK can be implemented either (though it appears to be the most efficient). These other methods also have to be mentioned because the wiki always strives to maintain WP:NPOV. I have provided some history for the AWAK devices and also mentioned another AWAK that was developed in Italy. What do you think of these changes? I think the text reads much smoother now and is much more balanced and fair. Unfortunately, AWAK is not notable enough to deserve its own article. However, I think it does deserve a mention as a section in the dialysis article, so it will be moved there shortly. I will leave the text here for a day for you to comment on, and then if we have consensus, I will try to make the merge into dialysis. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The ViWAK works in the day with the cycler for about 12hours, with the regeneration of the dialysate. But, patients have to change to a fresh bag of dialysate before going to bed and this period, the cycler will not be involved. As mentioned in the newly edited text, you mentioned it works with a technology of CAPD (mentioned in the journal), which require patient intervention (as seen in ViWAK). The changing of fresh dialysate every night marks the difference from a full automation of what is term an AWAK - whereby patient do not need to change to a fresh bag of dialysate every night, or any point of time unless emergency. It is fully automated. My doctor too, agreed with the technology difference and ViWAK was not appropriate to be catergorised as automated. AWAK works with a technology of TPD, as when i have explained initially in my first article, is a unique technology which allow AWAK to be fully automated with its great efficiency. Thus, i feel that the technology difference from others in details does deserve to have its own article, with an abstract or summary written in the dialysis page, and linked to the main article like the hemofiltration and peritoneal dialysis. I am confident that i can write a neutral article explaining its technology and automation. I really hope you can consider what i have mentioned. Thank you so much for your great understanding and the immerse help and also the opportunity to voice my opinion here. Limjason (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm sorry to have caused you so much trouble. I understand that you have included the article and text by the italy researchers on ViWAK. I have read the article too. However, i find it is not exactly convincing enough to be considered automated wearable artificial kidney, with the technology difference.


 * You're trying to split hairs with your definition. The ViWAK PD may not be fully autonomous (thanks for bringing that up, I had missed that in the article, but I now added those details), but it still certainly deserves mention as technology that is working in that direction. Just because the UCLA AWAK is the only true AWAK in development does not mean it is going to be the only thing discussed. All attempts prior (from the seventies to now) should be discussed with relative emphasis given to the more successful ones. You may feel that the UCLA AWAK deserves an article all to itself, but that is not the case. Even if the article was well written and neutral, it is a neologism and does not meet the notability criteria. If there was an actual product that was being commercially sold, then that might be a different story. However, since the only documentation on this device is the two articles (and reports based on it), it seems to me that this is more of just an idea/design than an actual device that has been made and tested. If this device becomes more prominent, then it may deserve its own article. However, as it stands now, I do not think it can stand alone. If you do want to write up a neutral article about this and propose it for inclusion, then I would suggest that you do it in a subsection on your talk page. Once it is complete, then you can ask me or other editors for comments and whether they think it is ready/worthy of inclusion into wikipedia. A great place to set this page up would be User:Limjason/AWAK. To start you off, I have copied the last version of text that you had from this article to User:Limjason/AWAK as your starting point to your sub page. You can make the changes and write the article as you said you would from there. Good luck! Chaldor (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you so much for your advice. Can you please advise me on the the term neologism? Because as i can see from the UCLA AWAK and the AWAK Technologies site, it think it should be able to substantiate that the actual device is going to be out soon. I am from Singapore and AWAK Technologies is a Singapore based company. That is why we know much more of the device and its progress and availablity to bring a revolutionary treatment for us patients. That was the reason why i support that it deserve its own article. As you can see from the PRESS RELEASE page of AWAK Technologies, many articles can be found there and it shows how much publicity this product has and its progress to be commercialisation. Thank you once again Chaldor. Limjason (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can find out more about neologisms at WP:NEO. If you think AWAK has more relevance in Singapore, then you should add the article to the malay wikipedia. As far as the english wikipedia is concerned, AWAK does not appear to pass the notability criteria and is a neologism. It is my opinion that the article must be moved or deleted. I am in favor of moving it to a section within Dialysis because I think it has relevance there. Chaldor (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I will read up more of neologisms. I would also like to clarify that Singapore is not part of Malaysia and our first language is English and not Malay. Leaving the content in English wikipedia i feel would be the most appropriate. I was just wondering why wearable kidney and artificial kidney can have their own article but why not automated wearable artificial kidney? I agree with you absolutely that a section within dialysis is appropriate, but i really do hope that an article itself would exist too, noting that wearable kidney and artificial kidney existed too. Your advice please. Limjason (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was mistaken. According to the CIA Factbook, the primary language spoken is Chinese, so perhaps the chinese wiki would be a more appropriate location. Thank you for bringing those other articles to my attention. I was not aware of their existence. Note that just because they exist is no justification for this one. In fact, a quick glance through alerted me to the fact that they too are not notable and are neologisms. At the moment, I am not sure what to do with them, but at the very least, they need to be combined and likely merged (with this one) into a single article encompassing all three, or perhaps into another article like Dialysis. I will tag them as issues immediately. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Chaldor (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * hi! not a problem! I would still feel that keeping this article in english is the most appropriate with singaporeans taking english as our 1st language amongst all others. Its not appropriate to keep them in other languages of wikipedia.
 * So am i right to say that the article can only be a stand alone if the product is out into the market? If there were to be a merger into dialysis, i hope people who search for the key words such as AWAK can be directed there. Thank you so much! Limjason (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, sorry, I don't think my humor was conveyed in my words very well. I wasn't being very serious regarding the move to the chinese/malay wikipedia. I was proposing that tounge-in-cheek to counter your assertion of authority (you were saying that since the product/company is a Singapore based product, so you have far greater knowledge over it...so then I was saying, if so, then let it reflect that prominent stature on a different wiki).
 * If the product was currently on the market, then, to me, that would definitely be one reason in favor of its own article. However, there are many commercial products out there that don't have their own wiki pages because they don't satisfy the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. It entirely depends on how the product is received/sells. If it is a major success and revolutoinizes the dialysis community, then absolutely, it will undoubtedly deserve its own page (this is the basic idea governing the WP:NTEMP policy). However, if, like many other medical devices, it is just another option, then its discussion will likely remain within a section of some more general page like Dialysis. Does this sound reasonable? Chaldor (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may also want to take a look at WP:WEIGHT for a description of balance within articles (how to determine how much to write about a specific subject). More general guidlines are in WP:CONTENT. I forgot to answer your last question. Absolutely, the titles Automated wearable artificial kidney, AWAK, Artificial kidney, and Wearable kidney will all still remain there. They will simply be redirects to the relevant section within the proposed Dialysis section. Take a look at WP:REDIRECT for more information about this. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier. For an example, take a look at Acetaminophen, the US version of the drug name, and the international version, Paracetamol. Both are the same page, but acetaminophen redirects to paracetamol. I'd certainly like to see the same happen for these pages. Chaldor (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Haha, well.. that is the flaw of such form of communication! Ok, i got your joke now! Thanks for your examples you gave here. Anyway, what about those articles, eg. Baxter Inc., are those considered promoting for the company ? Sorry, i think i'm have bored you with so many questions! Limjason (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok to ask questions. That's how you learn! Do you mean Baxter International? That article is not promoting the company. It's there for encyclopedic information regarding a major, global corporation with nearly 50,000 employees. Companies that have major contributions to the economy and market will of course be included in the wiki. They meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Further, there is little conflict of interest or WP:BIAS because if you look at the history of the article, you will see that it has been created and edited by dozens/hundreds of contributors. It was not written by a single person. All these contributors working together have created an article for the corporation that is neutral. It is acceptable to have articles about companies (or even products) on wikipedia. But the requirement is that the company or product must meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria otherwise it cannot have its own article. Examples of notable companies include the one you mentioned, and others like Amgen, Microsoft, Google, UBS AG, and VISA. Notable products include items like Scotch Tape, Crock-Pot, Wii, and the Motorola RAZR V3. Getting an understanding for what passes the WP:NOTABILITY criteria versus what doesn't can be a little tricky, but I think these examples should provide a good basis for forming an intuition. Chaldor (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Singapore just ended the hosting of Formula 1 Grand prix by the way! haha. Ok, anyway could you allow me to look through the links that you gave me and hopefully i can do a better editing thereafter! Cheers. Limjason (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * hi! I have just uploaded the article into my user page User:Limjason/AWAK. the first part gives a general idea about what is AWAK. the second part discuss about the current existing dialysis method. Thirdly, i talk about the development of AWAK and what are the recent news of this technology. i mentioned about the ViWAK and follow rather closely to the journal article. As for the UCLA article, i find it good to quote their progress as they have agreed to develop the commercial wearable kidney. Next, i briefly touched on how a general AWAK works in point form. Lastly, i mentioned about the general impact of AWAK to the society, what good can such a device change the lives of a ESRD patient.
 * I will put up the referencing for the article once u agree with my changes! Thank you so much. Hope to hear from you soon. Limjason (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this on the talk page for the article itself in your user space. Chaldor (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)