User talk:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH)/Archive 4

DYK for Transmission of COVID-19
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to this DYK, did not follow the proper process, was factually incorrect and was written by a paid editor for an agency with a vested interest. --Investigatory (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Elastomeric respirator
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Workplace impact of artificial intelligence
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Supplied-air respirator
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

aerosols
Hi John. I find it interesting that your agency has updated their guidance around aerosols. Its good we can cite them well again. I was selectively citing the ECDC, admittedly! both on the article you started and in the main COVID pages. --Investigatory (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to cite sources from multiple organizations, especially where there's uncertainty about the topic. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well we'll have to cite the internet archive for the CDC on that one for now, as well as the ECDC and WHO. I would like to merge the other articles you wrote what do you think? --Investigatory (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for United States Public Health Service reorganizations of 1966–1973
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Does your agency care to comment?
Would be great to hear the CDC's view on our little RFC. --Investigatory (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because I do find the DYK that the CDC made highly objectionable, and it only passed due to literally ignoring all rules. --Investigatory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The DYK process was followed properly, the hook was factually correct and confirmed to be so by the reviewer, and I have followed all procedures required of paid Wikipedians-in-Residence. You are casting aspersions that have no basis in fact.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was passed due to WP:IAR because the requirements of a new article weren't met (if you copied it, it needed to be 5x expanded which it wasn't). The virus according to the WHO and ECDC at the time, was known to be airborne. Most importantly, given the CDC does not align with multiple agencies and has been accused of political interference, paid editing by the CDC should have no place on COVID-19 related articles. --Investigatory (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have notified the conflict of interest noticeboard of my objection
I object to paid editors employed by the CDC editing COVID-19 articles. Please see my objection. With kind thanks. --Investigatory (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No fault of yours personally, but I think its worthy of community wide discussion and I have notified the administrators here. --Investigatory (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be pertinent and helpful to know, who directs and supervises your edits about COVID-19? When will the draft guidance be updated, and what political interference led to your edits that led to the DYK? If the topic ban proposal doesn't have community consensus, rest assured that one editor will have your covid-19 edits on a watchlist. Unless your agency finally updates its guidance, the draft was fine. --10:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investigatory (talk • contribs)
 * It would not. User:Investigatory, this is not the place for you to ask editors about their job outside of Wikipedia. Your personal vendetta against the CDC or whatever you have issue with does not give you the right to harass an editor of this project, even if they are affiliated with the CDC/NIOSH off-wiki. @John, I encourage you to simply ignore this user - I see no reason that any consensus for action against you would form and you're much more valuable editing articles instead of responding to this person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the AN thread, there might be the kernel of a valid point here -- the US federal government is certainly not without fault -- but you have buried it beneath so many layers of vexatiousness (a DYK article nomination procedure taking into account that wholly new content had been written when evaluating the expansion factor of new edits???) and just plain hostility (making threads on multiple noticeboards in addition to haranguing this guy on his talk page about his off-wiki job) that it's hard for the discussion to be about anything else. What in tarnation? jp×g 17:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bureau of State Services
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bureau of Medical Services
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work. I recognize pictures from the article. Though, the word 'existences' makes me uncomfortable, although I see why you used it - 'incarnations'. Shenme (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thanks! Yes, "existences" is a bit non-standard, but it makes sense in context.  Now that I think about it, something like "periods of existence" would be a bit more grammatical.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for List of U.S. Public Health Service Hospitals
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Division of Global Migration and Quarantine
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Article for journalists that references you
Hello there, John P Sadowski, I appreciate the work you've done with Wikipedia. I have just published an article on Wikipedia for data journalists and reference WP articles you've worked on and your user page as an example of exemplary disclosure. Thanks for all you've done for the project and I hope if the article is useful, you'll consider sharing. Warm regards. Shameran81 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a very good article! I'm glad to be an examplar to others of how to properly disclose COI and paid editing.  (As an aside, it probably would have been best practice to ask in advance, but it's no big deal in this case.)
 * There's actually a simple reason for the sudden increase in pageviews of Symptoms of COVID-19: the day of the jump was the day I created the article by splitting text from the main COVID article. Before then it was a redirect, so the only traffic would have been coming internally from Wikipedia through wikilinks or the search bar.  Once it became an actual article, Google and others would have started showing it in search results, probably within minutes, increasing the traffic.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and for reading. The user page example was added late in the editorial process; I appreciate your receptivity. The Symptoms of Covid's jump was an outcome of a split ... yes, a good example of why to dig into PV and editorial processes before drawing conclusions. Shameran81 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's unusual for redirects to get that many pageviews. If anything, the story may be that people expected there to be an article there, but no one had put in the work to actually create it.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you created it, I agree it is valuable for readers. Thanks for the convo and for your efforts. Shameran81 (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

detente
It would be good to have a detente from accusing all Australians who got excited about editing Transmission of COVID-19 from being me. For me personally, I don't care to edit about it (or anything given this experience) anymore, but I do not believe these people met the criteria for WP:MEATPUPPET. Please also ensure that you escalate this to your superiors in your agency if you haven't already. --49.195.188.95 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP edits show the same editing patterns that your account did, focusing on a single article and having a POV of emphasizing aerosol transmission and de-emphasizing droplet and contact transmission. (There's nothing wrong with such a viewpoint as long as it's balanced with others in the article, but it's a clear fingerprint for sockpuppet/meatpuppet identification.)  If the edits weren't from you, they were clearly from one or more very close colleagues of yours.  If so, you should reflect on the fact that your behavior has been so egregious that it's resulted in preventing not only you, but your colleagues from editing Wikipedia.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a failure of wikipedia to disallow experts from editing it when they see a reason to edit it, no? And the reason I allowed myself to be banned and will not subject myself to further interrogation is because the issue is controversial here and do not wish to be WP:OUTED? no? if you wish to defend yourself, do so in a court of decency or anything better than wikilawyering myself off the website. --49.195.110.176 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And the CDC's behaviour mark my words has been far more egregious, on wiki and off. --49.195.110.176 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For you though, I hope that you don't take it upon yourself to respiratory droplet Airborne transmission when your own agency is in internal conflict about the issues you are attempting to standardise. You are so far behind the 8 ball that you personally should not be editing covid related articles without the express permission of your superiors. There are multiple other countries in the world, John. --49.195.110.176 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

NIOSH edit-a-thon for Olive M. Whitlock
Hi here are the notes I gathered during the edit-a-thon and draft entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olive_M._Whitlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll see if I can expand it any more before moving it to mainspace.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice Nixon pic.
The last couple of days I've been doing a sweep through all the orphaned and underused public-domain photos of Nixon on Commons and adding them to articles. Imagine my shock when a new one showed up in the 1970 category when I refreshed the page!!! LOL! Good upload. Do you have any of the names of the people in the photo? jp×g 03:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good timing! I found photo on a couple of different websites, but unfortunately none of them are very good quality.  One of the websites attributes it to the Department of Labor, which doesn't seem to have an online picture file like some other agencies do.  If you're willing to do some digging, perhaps if you look at newspapers from the day or two after the signing you might find this picture with a caption.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA
I have addressed your concerns. Thank you — Amkgp 💬  18:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

please have a look. — Amkgp 💬  07:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it tomorrow. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have answered your concerns. — Amkgp 💬  06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added ref for 'Tissue regeneration'. For others, its becoming too much specialized for me to research and add ref as I am from engineering background with interest in medical application. I would therefore request you to add remaining refs or do modifications as you may find fit. I am the nominator of the DYK. I nominated the article in interest of readers worldwide regarding RNA based vaccine. You can see that I already took help from (from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) School of Medicine) and others are not so active to respond. Hoping the issues are resolved soon and the DYK passes. Thank you. — Amkgp  💬  04:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work on this article; it's difficult even for specialists to write in such technical areas. I don't want to do too much rewriting myself because then we have to wait for someone else to approve the article.  But I could search for a source or two on risks and have you (or someone else) write a couple sentences based on them.  Otherwise, we can just remove the risks section and pass the article.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I posted for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine and got similar suggestion. I removed 'Risks' section due to lack of verifiability through available WP:MEDRS. Is it now ready to be passed? — Amkgp 💬  08:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, two in one hour! I'm very gratified.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)