User talk:Almaty

The virus

The virus is spread between people when in close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. These droplets are produced during all forms of breathing out, but usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances.

User:Doc James i think thats going to last for a few weeks and also is readable and avoids all conflicts previosuly discussed. --Almaty (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Mainly" is needed in their as there are other possible ways of spread that do not involve close contact. We can just say "breathing" we do not need. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

How about "The virus is mainly spread between people when in close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. While these droplets are produced with breathing, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Or better yet "The virus is mainly spread between people when in close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, or talking. These droplets usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances and may also be produced during breathing." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer "The virus is mainly spread between people when in close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. While these droplets are produced with breathing, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances." User:Doc James --Almaty (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals, by definition, do not cough or sneeze to any appreciable extent. This leaves direct or indirect contact modes and aerosol transmission as the main possible modes of transmission. Much media attention has correctly focused on the possibility of direct and indirect transmission via for example contaminated hands, with public health messages focusing on the importance of washing hands thoroughly and often, and of greeting others without shaking hands.

to publish the latest proposal

The virus is mainly spread between people during close contact, often via small droplets produced during coughing, sneezing or talking. While these droplets are produced during breathing out, they usually fall to the ground or surfaces rather than being infectious over large distances. from me and User:Doc James over email --Almaty (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

to discuss the topic ban

Dear User:Bradv, although i clearly went about it the wrong way, and i have learnt my lesson, the intent of the edit war was to get a forced block. I then converted it to self requested block for 2 weeks which I wish to stand. The reason for me not thinking clearly can be discussed further over email if required, as I've already done to Doc James. James and myself virtually agree on everything, and did at the time, it's just a rapidly changing situation and I wanted wikipedia to immediately reflect what was happening in the FAQs in regard to the transmission mode, and the controversy. I recognize that there is actually no huge rush (please note that I said to Doc James at the time "there is no time" - but I now agree with his reply "Yes, there is".)
I'm just not good at wikipedia politics yet, and I have familiarized myself with pages on how to take time out and wikibreaks. Its obviously a stressful time for doctors all over the world.
I'd also like you to look at my past edits, with another controversial topic that I edited, Digital media use and mental health. I requested a 4 week block at that time of that article's creation when all of my edits were being removed. I then after the block improved that article to featured article status and got the 4 award. So i would like you to reconsider the topic ban. I am now aware if any similar concerns arise in the future, how to wikicode myself a wikibreak, and i know which administrators to ask for a block if I can't work it out, namely Xaosflux or yourself. --Almaty (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Also thankyou for this post. --Almaty (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Starting an edit war in order to get yourself blocked is a spectacularly bad idea. Check in with me when you're ready to get back to editing and we can talk about the topic ban. Until then, enjoy your wikibreak. – bradv🍁 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a spectacularly bad idea, and one I wasn't able to think through for a number of off wiki reasons. Might be important to note the time of the edit war (approx 4am in Australia). Not ready to return until my original request of 2 weeks is finished, I think next week. Its a trying topic to edit, and I've never edited a current event before let alone a current pandemic. However, I do feel that I will be able to contribute more modestly and assist with the volume of information that needs to be sourced well, after the wikibreak. If its still needed by then, I probably tried to take too much of it on myself. --Almaty (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Bradv do you have thoughts or questions about the topic ban? of particular pertinence is that the COVID-19 pages do not, in my opinion, at the moment need major bold edits anymore, as I was doing since Feburary which caused the "wikistress" combined with the off wiki stresses for myself and many if not most doctors around the world. I wrote the original transmission section, rearranging it from its original places, and made it prominent, and I felt a certain sense of responsibility over that which in retrospect was not required. The consensus between James and me around the wording around transmission in the lead was always there and was clarified by email further during my wikibreak. I will only be making minor edits as far as I can see for the forseeable future. To ping User:Doc James if its appropriate for him to comment on the question. Kind regards, Almaty --Almaty (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to see Almaty return to editing as they are able. And agree that editing WP can be stressful at times. They made some excellent points during the prior discussions and I agree we ended up with better content because of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the conversation here and this AN thread, I've gone ahead and lifted the topic ban. – bradv🍁 15:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	In recognition of your prior efforts to make WP's COVID19 content better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good on you for this Doc. As Almaty is an FA writer, and (considering his age) a well cited expert on controlling infectious disease, it seemed a little regrettable for him to be banned from Covid at this point in time. Still, I always knew an editor of your calibre would make the right call here – so it seemed a better learning experience for Almaty to handle this by himself without his wiki otter butting in.

I see you seem to be under attack on the Arb board. I'll weigh in for you there in a bit, especially on the ludicrous timing. Still, seeing that the case is going ahead,

...a few of the points made seem correct...

The current set of Arbs seem quite exceptional, so hopefully even if you contribute nothing more to the case, it will end without any sanction for yourself other than perhaps a minor admonishment. But if you want to be safe, you could consider giving ground on two things, which IMO would be best for the encyclopaedia regardless of tactical considerations. S Marshall is almost always worth listening to. He seems correct about you arguably being spread a little thin. Precisely because you're such a well respected editor, hasty actions by you have a greater risk of impacting on others. E.g. as per the recent escalation with Almaty, which led to the topic ban. To address this you could say you'll be trimming your watchlist a little. On drug pricing, your central concern seems to be that they are "a critically important aspect of global health" You echoed this in in January. You're correct here, but the thing is said critically is largely only of concern at strategic level to those interested in public health. As was noted back in Jan 2019, "No senior official in public health policy would trust our science articles...". One wouldn't say that about regular readers, and as well explained here by Iridescent and many others, there are numerous ways the pricing info might cause harm to said regular readers. So in this light it's a no brainer to largely exclude the pricing info. Normally you're the first to be sensitive to the needs of regular readers – there aren't many subject matter experts like you who advocate so well for clarity. It seems possible you may have developed a blind spot in this case due to your passion about the global health thing, and the badness of some of the arguments against pricing. If you accept that Iridescent is right about the effects on regular readers and that PHP folks are unlikely to be bothered either way, perhaps you could say you've come to see there are good reasons against the blanket inclusion of pricing after all?

So a minor tactical adjustment may be an idea. Just saying this here where hopefully the attackers aren't watching... FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much User:Doc James the barnstar means a lot. Thanks again for all the support User:FeydHuxtable - can I just confirm that I see you seem to be under attack on the Arb board. refers to Doc rather than me? I'll just wait for Bradv before drawing more attention to myself by asking an administrator. Thanks --Almaty (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You're most welcome, & yes refers to Doc. Thanks also from me for your excellent work on Covid. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for helping in the fight against COVID, both on wiki and off. Cheers, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 21:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

About this: Yes, you are meant to comment there. You, along with all other editors, are also meant to provide evidence, to leave messages on the talk page, to suggest resolutions to ArbCom, and to otherwise do anything you want that (a) doesn't change someone else's contributions and (b) you think might help ArbCom understand what's going on or otherwise resolve the dispute(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)