User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 17

Please Help me
Hello WhatamIdoing, I want to continue to administrate the Haitian wikipedia. I created a section to vote for me in the "Kafe". Could you help me by encouraging contributors to vote quickly?--Gilles2014 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gilles2014. I noticed that your admin status had expired just a few days ago.  I've pinged the recent active editors, and of course you still have my support.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gilles2014, it's been 15 days. Have you contacted the Stewards yet, or would you like me to?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you very much for the barnstar, DBigXray. Here's hoping that it works! WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin
I don't NEED to do anything. But YOU need to mind your own damned business. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Calton, your response is rude and needlessly aggressive. Please do not post profanity on my user talk page.  I have mentioned your error and your response in the ANI discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"brilliantly summarized"
Hah, thanks for that :-)

It was interesting what you wrote about the different historical phases of WPMED. As a relative newbie (7 years?) I don't really "get" the historical context for some of the current drama, which is saddening to see ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your brilliant insight deserved wider recognition, and I thought that it might help people at ANI see that the fundamental dispute is about different conceptions of what Wikipedia should be.
 * WPMED has changed over time. We've lost some good editors, and we've gained some new ones.  I miss the folks we've lost, but it's still my favorite group of people online.  I think that will always be the case.     WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Second Source Barrett Watten
Hi WhatamIdoing,

Writing to follow up on the sourcing requirements for biography of living persons re: the Barrett Watten page. Namely, would a second source need to be from a separate publication, or would a follow-up article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed be sufficient as corroboration? Thank you for taking the time! --Justanotherpoet (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Justanotherpoet. The short answer is "yes".  The accurate answer is "it depends".
 * If, say, a second CHR article said "Oops, sorry about that", then the correct answer might be to never mention it. Wikipedia's BLP rules would normally treat that like the police accidentally arresting an innocent person:  it might have been personally traumatizing for all concerned, but it's not important to know about this temporary incident to understand the person's overall life and work (unless the person makes it important later, e.g., by dedicating the rest of their career to solving that problem).
 * If a second CHR article said very little, then that wouldn't change matters at all.
 * But if a second CHR article was relatively long and provided more (i.e., different) information, then that would normally make editors want to reassess the situation.
 * That said, even a short article (or a few paragraphs from a longer article) in a different publication would be more valuable in terms of showing that these allegations should be included.  200 words in CHR would probably get no change in the article.  200 words in The Detroit Free Press would be grounds for re-evaluation.
 * It's also possible that (based entirely on what direction subsequent sources take), editors would decide that the problem is less about the individual, and more about the organization. In that case, it's possible that they'd decide that this information (with or without anyone's names) really belongs in the article about Wayne State University.
 * I see that you have also asked a similar question of User:StarryGrandma. It's great to ask for help.  We know that this is an endlessly confusing and overly complicated place.  But please consider asking questions on the talk page or on a central noticeboard, such as Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  It's easier for everyone to see the questions then, and if the advice you get from the first person isn't complete or quite correct, then someone else might jump in to help clarify matters.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick followup; your explanation makes perfect sense, and I'll let the process work itself out beyond helping to identify the new sources. My first thought was to edit the article's Talk Page, but I believe the protections have been extended beyond to that space as well. Is it alright if I communicate directly with you or User:StarryGrandma? --Justanotherpoet (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like you're stuck for a few more days. (You can avoid this problem by making sure that your web browser saves your username and password.  You normally won't be logged out for about a year, but you will need to login again every time you clear your cookies.  A "slightly used" account lets you do a lot more things than a brand-new one.)
 * Yes, it's okay to post here until you're able to post there. BTW, if you link to someone's username, just like you did for StarryGrandma in that comment, that person will get notified.  This means you can post on one of the pages and ping the other editor, and you won't have to post anything twice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing,

Writing to you to follow up on my previous questions, and thank you for opening your talk page for this matter. It seems a follow-up article has been published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (https://www.chronicle.com/article/This-Professor-Was-Accused-of/247705?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest). I hope this is helpful, and I'll "take my comment off the air." --Justanotherpoet (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Pricing examples
It would very much help if you were able to give examples, on talk-medmos, of the kind of drug prices (or cost knowledge) you might light to see in articles. Or indeed, the sort of thing you don't think should appear. Along with sources and an explanation of how any figures arise, limitations, etc. You mentioned the existing examples weren't exactly Wikipedia at its finest. But a sole editor, with an openly stated agenda, isn't Wikipedia at its finest either. I am concerned, just like with the article-videos, that perhaps Wikipedia is no longer a collaborative editing project. In previous times, if faults were found with article text, or proposed article text, we'd see a bunch of editors offering suggested variants and ideally all working towards a consensus version. Instead, well, we don't see any serious attempt to address the problems raised. There's zero specific input from other editors in support of or critical of text/source. Instead those wanting prices are focused entirely on the "drug pricing is important" soundbite. I can't believe wiki now lacks editors who are skilled in WP:V and WP:NOR policy review or are brilliant at identifying what our sources say and therefore what we can say. Are there any other editors you think could be pinged to help out here, other than your good self? -- Colin°Talk 14:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * From a bystander, even us video gamers have guidelines against pricing/costs at WP:VGSCOPE#8. (See also the fourth bullet at WP:VG/MOS.) --Izno (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Colin. I'm sorry to say that I'm not likely to be able to devote the time this really needs until at least Thursday.  I'll try to drop in later just to have a quick look, but this needs hours and hours of attention.
 * (By "existing" examples, I mean the content already in the articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry XMAS!
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version) Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard reply July 2019
Thank you for this reply - I have been mostly off-Wiki and this slipped by me until now. I have amended the article Dan Kneen with the archived website link as suggested in infobox, leaving the modern version with a different description under the Ext Links heading. Compliments of the Season to you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up on that when you got back, Rocknrollmancer. And thanks for bringing an interesting question to that noticeboard.     WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style Discretionary Sanctions
Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Merry Christmas to you, too, Whispyhistory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Hello WhatamIdoing, I want to add two sentences to the talk page on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (to which I have made very occasional small edits over the last decade), but even the talk page is locked. You seem to be at the center of the conversation and stick to the rules, neutral between the warring factions. What do I do, or should I simply wait? The editors do not seem to understand that (1) the medical literature on MCS was distorted 25 years ago by well funded and unethical PR on the chemical companies' side; and (2) MCS as experienced by people like me cannot possibly occur given the basic theory underlying the practice of medicine, so debating what is happening assuming that theory is correct is at best a waste of time. I advocate shortening the page by 10x, summarizing the two sides' positions succinctly, and removing all of the advocacy and disinformation from both sides. -Fstevenchalmers Fstevenchalmers (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Fstevenchalmers,
 * I agree with you that one of the problems we've been having is confusing the theorized etiologies with the reality of what people experience. Those are entirely separate questions.
 * What kind of sources have you found? So far, I've found one highly reputable (though not super recent) medical textbook, which is a good way to represent the mainstream medical viewpoint.  I haven't "used up" this source yet, so I haven't spent a lot of time looking for another, but I would like to get a couple of more recent sources.  Ideally, when we're done with this round of updates, almost all the sources in the article will be from the current decade.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

From a practical point of view, research into physical causes of MCS stopped 25 years ago when ESRI, run by Ron Gots and funded as a litigation defense effort largely by the chemical industry, went to the grant funders, institutions, researchers, and the journals with a story which painted the research as enabling these poor, poor mentally ill people and in so doing harming them. Best retelling (in a non peer reviewed form, of course) http://annmccampbell.com/publicationswritings/publication-1/.

There was a bequest to Harvard to study this area but I see no useful results. https://sites.sph.harvard.edu/hoffman-program/

There is work by Ann Steinemann, who in the last few years left the US for a university in Australia, carefully never using the words "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity", the best of which is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-019-00699-4. Her work more generally is linked at https://www.drsteinemann.com/publications.html.

There is also work by Claudia Miller (who co wrote a seminal book almost 30 years ago, and invented the term TILT for Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance, and the QUEESI questionnaire). https://tiltresearch.org/ None of this comes close to forming a theory of how a minute exposure could, in a sensitized person, rapidly produce a subjectively noticeable change in the operation of the nervous system. Neither does anything the Environmental Medicine community has done since Theron Randolph. Martin Pall was in the right space, but even there IMHO was looking at a special case and not the general case.

None of these papers are of the quality Wikipedia's rules treat as the gold standard. The fact that Ron Gots' name was featured on the Wikipedia MCS page for over a decade says his disinformation effort of 25 years ago continues to bear fruit. It also bore fruit in litigation, shutting down chemical injury claims (including my own) for decades. The people with MCS (my side) were so totally outgunned that we lost decisively. I assume paid advocacy for the chemical industry is still occurring, but not through a visible organization.

The reason why I advocate radically shrinking this page is that it has been used to distribute disinformation in the past, disinformation which was deliberately injected into the science/medicine literature so it could be cited for litigation defense. There is no one really working directly on research, or trying to publish, papers which disagree. They're just sidestepping the issue and trying to chip away at its edges. It will be decades before science and medicine are ready to invest in looking here again.

Thank you for listening. Not sure if anything I've shared here is useful. Oh, and for the record, I hypothesize MCS is an autoimmune disease of the system of circulating proteins in the bloodstream allowing what are normally haptens on those proteins to interfere with the miniscule supplies of neurotransmitters and ion-channel ions supplying the nervous system. Utter heresy in medical circles, no possibility of discussion or publication of a hypothesis remotely like this, any more than Semmelweiss could get heard about washing hands. And I'm just a retired computer designer, no credentials.

-Fstevenchalmers Fstevenchalmers (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fstevenchalmers, those look like they'll give me a clearer idea of the clinical ecology POV.
 * I understand that the one thing that they've settled on recently is that the original cause is "multifactorial". What I think doesn't matter for the article, either, but I'm currently liking the neurological notions myself, which connects to your hypothesis.  The neurological notions seem to explain more than the psychological hypothesis.
 * The litigation thing is another area that I'm not sure how to represent. The history section is a mess, and that might be the place to talk about various organizations and lawsuits.  We're also spending too much time on who "recognizes" MCS.  Most of those aren't even about recognition as a practical syndrome; they're about whether the organization has stated a belief in a particular etiological hypothesis.  Wikipedia then ends up with self-contradictory claims, in which 5% of people have been medically diagnosed with MCS, but the people issuing those diagnoses supposedly "don't recognize" MCS as a valid diagnosis.
 * The debate over etiology reminds me a bit of cancer patients. When people get past the initial shock of being diagnosed with cancer, they're usually desperate to identify (and control) the cause.  When the cause isn't obvious, the thing they decide to blame can be almost random.  It's not unusual to have cancers grow for five or ten years before they're diagnosed, and yet cancer patients almost always pick a cause that produced a strong emotional response (e.g., disgust or fear, which are both primary emotions) and happened just one or two years before the cancer was diagnosed (i.e., when the tumor had likely been growing for three to nine years already).  Humans are wired to think this way, and humans with MCS are presumably no different in that regard.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for listening, WhatamIdoing, and I apologize for my mishaps on both style/indentation/formatting and almost certain etiquette errors. Four more thoughts for you:

First, on the "recognition" issue, here's the real story. There are somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 people like me in the US, who simply don't function well in the presence of everyday things which are routinely tolerated by the rest of the population. We can't work in a normal work environment, we can't socialize, we have a limited ability to go in stores. The recognition of this under ADA varies, and quite frankly in many cases it's too hard to practically accommodate. There is a 30 year old battle for accommodation. It's existential for the disabled: without the ability to work, without the ability to have housing one can function in, without the ability to go about one's business in public, one generally falls through the social safety net. These recognitions are about precedent for ADA accommodation and precedent for landing in rather than falling through the social safety net. Again, it's existential for a lot of people with my disability, and to be honest, what's written in Wikipedia may well affect the perceptions of those who approve and deny accommodation and social services. A good reference on this is a Yale Law Review article from about 6 years ago,. From that piece:

" Much about MCS remains unknown and undefined, and unlike fibromyalgia, the development of MCS as a diagnosis has met with resistance from industry, as well as the medical community. Manufacturers of everything from fragrances to chemical pesticides have billions of dollars at stake; some doctors suggest that industry public relations efforts are the only reason MCS research has moved so slowly and remained so controversial. 02 If this is the case, the anti-MCS movement has certainly been effective: Even in the most recent material, highly contentious debate about the condition continues. 103" (Pages 20-21)

Second, the Clinical Ecologists (now called Environmental Medicine) can serve only the well off. A normal person doesn't have $10,000-$20,000 and the resources to live in special rental housing for a few months to visit the Environmental Health Center at Dallas. Insurance doesn't cover non-mainstream medicine. A normal person doesn't even have $500 for a normal intake exam at a local Environmental Medicine practice, much less all the tests they'll call for to see if there is anything wrong with you that medicine does know how to fix. So mainstream people with MCS are a different constituency from the MCS doctors.

Third, the term "Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance" was created and driven into the literature by the chemical industry funded disinformation team 25ish years ago, as part of their litigation defense effort to separate the chemical industry's products from what patients were experiencing. As author and advocate of that era Bonnye Mathews said at the time, "There is nothing idiopathic about being poisoned." I have no credible cite for you here. I want to be neutral on your proposed change (moving the disinformation under a header created by its proponents is poetic justice) but think there will be political blowback from the pro-MCS-recognition side if that is done.

Fourth, I'm sure you've seen the extraordinarily well done lit review from 2 years ago done in Italy. I don't speak academic, so it took my son to translate the last few sections into plain English for me, but those last sections are very important.

Will have to think about the cancer patients thing. Some folks with MCS can point to a single large exposure (read up on Cindy Duehring, who was poisoned by improper professional use of an organophosphate pesticide) while in others it creeps up gradually. I tend to agree that there is a blame game after the fact. In the end, I can tell you the chain of events which created whatever soup it was that poisoned my family in our sick house 24 years ago, but none of the over $10,000 of chemical tests we ran found the exact culprit. A consultant we flew in told me that no customer of his had ever found the [culprit] in a situation like ours before running out of money, and he was right.

Again, thank you for listening. FStevenChalmers Fstevenchalmers (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with some of the names is that they claim that the "poisoning" is the original cause, and not merely the trigger for the everyday symptoms. (You see this thinking in cancer patients, too:  when the patient decides that the cancer was caused by poor diet, then it's difficult to resist the temptation to believe that drinking vegetable juice will make the cancer go away.  It doesn't work that way:  bacon causes colorectal cancer, and surgery cures it.)
 * Identifying a single incident or sudden onset was one of the requirements in an older MCS definition. (It seems to have disappeared at some point, but I haven't found any explanation why.  Perhaps it just wasn't pointful?)  I'm seeing that a number of new MCS diagnoses have identified a single incident as the cause, but that incident is physical trauma rather than a chemical exposure.  For the MCS person with sudden onset after a car wreck, "toxicant-induced" sounds factually wrong.  "Concussion-induced" seems like a more plausible explanation.  This isn't even a new idea among clinical ecologists and related fields; William Phillpott published a book about what he called "brain allergies" 20 years ago.
 * The Yale paper is probably usable in the article. I'll try to finish reading it later this week.  I'm not hoping for a quick fix on this article.  It's taken a year to get this much done, and I think that moving slowly is going to be ultimately more effective.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for listening, WhatamIdoing. A few thoughts in response, then I'll stand down, but I am around if needed/helpful. Your choice to go slow is wise, as I see it.

Your cancer analogy is a good one, it just took me looking from a totally different perspective to understand it. Your description of two phases of cancer (bacon to cause onset, polyps which result) is very true of MCS as Claudia Miller articulates in her TILT writings. But I think it's also spot on in another way: I've had polyps removed but do not have cancer. I have moles on my skin, but no cancer there either. Ann Steinemann's work in the last few years shows a prevalence of about 25% in the US of fragrance sensitivity, that is, some impact on the nervous or respiratory system from exposure to one or more ingredients. Other work in the last 30 years has varied from 33% of the population noticing they were affected, to about 16% who had modified their life (the example given at the time was not walking down the laundry detergent aisle in the grocery store). Full blown MCS is more analogous to cancer which has metastasized. The anti MCS recognition folks have a valid point in fearing bad PR from people in the 16% who freak out at normal, everyday perturbations of their nervous system caused by everyday things in our lives, and end up in anxiety or phobia as a result. But the across the board denial means if there are a handful of common solvents and enhancers (think MSG, but for the nose) which are impacting the ability to function of a large fraction of the population, they aren't being identified and phased out. To the cancer analogy I would add that EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) is in the same family of syndromes as MCS, as are Gulf War Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, maybe ME/Chronic Fatigue and a few others. In all cases something changes in the body, leaving the nervous system malfunctioning either momentarily in response to trace environmental stimuli, or seemingly permanently malfunctioning.

On the MCS sensitization phase: the diversity of experience of people both here and in the being-sensitive phase has led to a lot of infighting in the MCS community over definition. Any time someone writes down a clear definition, it excludes someone else's experience, which makes that person afraid whatever disability income and accommodations are keeping them functioning will be withdrawn, and they react like a cornered animal. There are absolutely people like me who can point to a specific experience in a specific place on a specific day and say I was normal before this and had MCS afterward. There are other people like those who worked in the EPA building in Washington DC when the chemically defective carpet was put in 30 years ago who can point to a continuing exposure as their cause. A lot of people slowly develop MCS after their residence has construction work of some sort, as did a number of people who worked in unventilated spaces where large amounts of carbonless paper copies (the colored back sheets of the NCR forms of 30-50 years ago) (formaldehyde), as did a number of people exposed to certain materials at certain Boeing aircraft manufacturing facilities 20-30 years ago as well. But there are also people who say "I got the flu and when I got over it I had MCS" or simply that it came on gradually over a period of years or decades with no discernible cause. Just as cancer finally settled on I look at a tissue sample under a microscope and it looks like cancer cells, regardless of where they are or what caused them, I favor a very inclusive definition of MCS which leaves no one behind. In the end, the rigorous definition will require measurements (laboratory work, instruments) which do not exist today, and just as the invention of the EEG ended 2000 years of the medical profession thinking epilepsy was psychological, there will be something we can measure which all of a sudden makes MCS, EHS, GWS, and the like make perfect sense, from a viewpoint we do not have today.

-Fstevenchalmers (by the way this is my real name and I can be found on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Medium as @Fsteven...) Fstevenchalmers (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fstevenchalmers, if you wanted help from the best of the best you came to the right place. {. Waid, still thinking about including WHO.  I've tried but have been unable to find their list of current diseases.  I'm wondering if they include Gulf War syndrome or Post-Ebola virus syndrome.  Can you help me? Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're very kind, User:Gandydancer.
 * When editors write that something isn't "recognized" by the WHO, they usually mean that there is no separate International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems code for it. I believe that GWS gets coded (and therefore billed) based on the separate components.  For example, if the symptom is headaches, you bill for headaches, and if it's PTSD, then you bill for PTSD, etc.  This page on the WHO's website shows information for WHO and IPCS's 1996 Berlin meeting, which produced one of the definitions.  It links to two publications from this century which might be useful.
 * The other thing that's going on there is that various orgs have said "Yes, you're sick, but it wasn't triggered by the chemical you claim". It's not recognized as being chemical-caused, which is different from being recognized as people having symptoms under certain circumstances.
 * Post-Ebola virus syndrome may be too new for an ICD code to be available (in the master list; there's a system for individual countries to add anything they want at any time, so some individual countries might have done so already). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I love the fact that the two versions were so easily combined. What do you think is the next step for expanding it? I don't know enough about it to know whether a ==Treatment== section makes sense. Are they similar enough, or is every condition different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Idk
Just saying hi, hi Santino grillo (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities
Hello WhatamIdoing. I started the page on International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities, and someone else has tagged it with a lot of complaints. I'm concerned that it might be deleted, and I feel that would be a mistake. Can you help to spruce it up? Thanks in advance, Magnovvig (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Walid Ammar
Draft:Walid Ammar is an important figure, not only for his national-level efforts, but also because he is on the IAOC of the Health Emergencies Programme (WHO). As I found out today, his page has had some difficulty being established: Creating Walid Ammar. I am rubbish at these administrative issues, and by all accounts you have more experience, so I humbly ask you to have a look-see and possibly to promote his wiki page to full mainline status. Full disclosure: I have absolutely no prior involvement in his regard. Thanks in advance, Magnovvig (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Magnovvig, I have my doubts about the AFC process for things like this. I think the goal should be to get notable subjects out of draftspace as rapidly as possible, but others think that they should all be left there until they're polished up and "good" articles.  So I'd just WP:MOVE it to the article space, but others might not.  If you want someone who has a chance of knowing something about the subject, then you might look at the active editors in this list:  WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Lebanon  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard
User:WhatamIdoing, please contribute to the resolution of a dispute I have with User:Sportstir. The dispute is currently on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, yesterday I offered another compromise to Sportstir, however, he did not respond to my offer. He and I are still at odds. I wonder if you could comment on the compromise I proposed on the Noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Psyc12). The compromise involves the i/o psychology and occupational stress entries because we have disagreements regarding those two entries. Perhaps you can help broker a peace. Here is the compromise:

"User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry. 1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence: "With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"       I would rewrite that sentence as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" 2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [1] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly." And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job." As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change."       The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Iss246 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, I write to ask you to weigh in on the Noticeboard on the proposal I made with reference to the disagreement Sportstir and I have. I am not asking you to take my side. Just to weigh in. You can find my proposal toward the bottom of the Industrial and organizational psychology notice on the Noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, regarding the Noticeboard, I write to ask you to comment on the three points I made in the eighth statement by the editors. I don't ask you to agree or disagree with me. Because you are a sensible editor, please comment and, perhaps, make a suggestion to help clear away the logjam. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

is there something you want to discuss
im here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Med
I tried to reply to you and it shows the edit but I don’t know what I messed up - it’s not in the section. I’m definitely still learning how to use the talk pages correctly so if you can either fix it or let me know what I did wrong I’d appreciate it! Sorry for the inconvenience!! bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, User:Berchanhimez. It ended up in the wrong section.  I see you're editing from a mobile device.  Talk pages can be complicated there.  Did it look normal while you were typing the comment?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it was through the mobile reply feature. I guess I’ll just try to avoid that in the future (aside from this reply) if it messes up. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Medicine proposed decision
The Medicine proposed decision was posted -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  14:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Need help with COVID-19 pandemic article
Waid, I'm trying to work on the COVID-19 pandemic article, presently the South America section, but I am at my wit's end with how to figure out how to manage the type of editing method they are using at that article nor do I understand why it is assumed that editors must use a different editing method for that particular article. Even as I look back in an attempt to try to figure it out it does not make sense to me. See here for example. This is from May 16 and yet when one looks at the South America section one sees copy that was added later (by me) and Ozzie's ref needed tag which sits there for no reason was actually added when a later edit by Doc left a paragraph without connection to the former ref... Even looking back into my edit record when I pull up my edits to the S.A. section they are not actually accurate. Could you please read the TP section I opened "Deletions in the South America section" and advise me? Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is one of the problems we have been talking about....the problem we have with transclution. We have talked about when things settle down we will fix the lazy and non friendly editing format. It's definitely a detriment to improving the articles. Perhaps time to look at the lazy editing and try to fix the problem.-- Moxy 🍁 14:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Moxy, for my part I'll support you Gandydancer on the talk(as I have) and will watch the history of the article more closely going forward, SA is VERY important now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gandydancer, the reason it stuck that tag in a separate "paragraph" is because the excerpt-transclusion system creates a dedicated "block" for the excerpted contents. Nothing you do can be inside its protected block.  The fastest way to solve the problem is to just stop using that system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well...you never were one to beat around the bush, were you?...which is why there have been plenty of times that I wanted to kiss the ground that you walk on. {  Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you want to remove the line break after an excerpt, you can just use span with the excerpt template. But if a citation needed tag is needed, then it's also needed at the source article, so just click through and add it there. I sympathize that it's a new system that takes a bit to get used to and still has some kinks to be worked out, but on the whole it's a really useful feature for conserving editor resources. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? If you had wanted to treat me like a fellow Wikipedia editor you would have replied to Waid's note at the article rather than to say you would clean some things up that were related to my deleted edits and then do nothing till coming here with some sort of reply many days later.  At my first edit in your article you first did not respond to my TP note and then when I did go ahead and edit the U.S. section you left a note to say that you had quickly reviewed my edit and it seemed OK but then left advise about any further edits I might make.  I like to collaborate with my fellow editors and I like to enjoy the time I spend here.  Your article does not seem to fit with what I like to do here and I am busy at work on other articles that I enjoy, and working with other editors that I enjoy.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sdkb, I don't think that it's true that "if a citation needed tag is needed, then it's also needed at the source article". WP:LEADCITE has not been revoked.
 * I do wonder whether the excerpt system is actually conserving editor's time (the most important resource) right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed
An arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
 * Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
 * QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * I am formally alerting anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Barkeep49. There seems to be an incomplete sentence towards the top:  "You have shown interest in ."  Should there maybe be a link or something there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm. I think the shortcode got changed. How about:

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That looks better. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Keto diet talk page
On my talk page, you said: I think that you should self-revert this blanking. WP:TPO says to stop if anyone objects to you removing their comments, and it appears that there has been an objection. Removing is a much bigger step, with more potential to annoy editors, than boxing up or rapidly archiving a discussion, so it is meant to be avoided.

If you want to solve the underlying reason why the discussion is on that page, then perhaps you could create very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and redirect "keto diet" there, or suggest that they move that discussion to Talk:Type 3 diabetes, where a discussion about the ideal contents of Type 3 diabetes (which does not mention high-fat diets) would be obviously relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The talk page participant, David spector, admitted being an advocate and practitioner of the KD, and was soapboxing further - as he had extensively in a previous talk discussion - about its use to prevent Alzheimer's disease, citing a physics magazine and other questionable sources. My impression was that he was throwing up a vague topic to see what else might stick, falling into the WP:TALKNO category above TPO, where it says "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Respectfully, I still feel this applies. I am not interested in advising a different topic for the two editors (I did suggest they talk by email) or in taking the discussion to another article. Thanks for your polite feedback. Zefr (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When the participants object to having their comments blanked, e.g., by restoring their conversation, then you need to stop blanking their comments. One editor's conviction that the discussion is off-topic is not enough to justify re-blanking their discussion.  If it really needs to be blanked again, then someone else will do it for you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC or no ?
Should I do an RFC, or post to WT:MED ? TS inherited this unnecessary mess and clutter as a result of the DJ apostrophe issue at Down’s, after which they came to TS. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)