User talk:Doc James/Archive 152

.....About that June 14 [2019] Board meeting we were all waiting for. I'll add the year since I have a feeling we might be waiting a while for y'all... Carrite (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Echoing this. We need a substantive update, and we needed it a week ago. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A number of us on the board are working on trying to figure out a solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is actively getting uglier. We need something beyond "The board is working on it". Tazerdadog (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for bugging you about this again, but could you really not have something like that it is taking a long time because some of the members are hard to reach at the moment? Benjamin (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is taking time to reach a consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-related: What happened at Wikitravel? Is there a recap of what happened somewhere online? --Rschen7754 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You mean other than at Wikivoyage User:Rschen7754? Management at Internet Brands made a bunch of decisions the community disagreed with. German language split off first. English split off later and rejoined with German's under the name Wikivoyage and joined the Wikimedia movement. Wikitravel is now basically dead. A good warning to all those lucky enough to have communities, ie volunteers are not staff and can only be pushed so hard. Wikivoyage is now more popular than Wikitravel per Alexa though it did take more than 5 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In 2012, after a lengthy history of dissatisfaction with Wikitravel's host and owner, Internet Brands, it was proposed that the community at Wikitravel fork their work from Wikitravel and Wikitravel Shared and – together with the existing sites at Wikivoyage – merge to create a new travel wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, the steward of Wikipedia and a large range of other non-profit reference sites based upon a wiki community culture Is there more information on this? Unfortunately [1] now redirects to the WMF-hosted Wikivoyage and the page is gone. [2] is somewhat helpful as it reminds me of IBobi (I was never really active on Wikitravel but remember reading about IBobi). --Rschen7754 00:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We have [3] and [4]. Internet Brands sent there paid staff to try to disrupt these discussions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Rschen7754 00:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the mess about WJBScribe over the last 24 hours, the need for something from the Board is becoming more urgent. The community abhors a vacuum, and emotions are running dangerously high. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said on Jimbo's talk page, it's not just WJBScribe, we're losings Admins, Crats, BAG members are a record rate. WP:BN has never been this active with admin/crat resignations. We're losing dozens of the top / most passionate editors. It's one thing to not give more weight to vested editors in consensus building. It's quite another to hemorrhage them through a self-inflicted wound. It's been over two weeks now. We need to hear something beyond 'discussions are ongoing'. A statement of intent. A summary of where things stand. SOMETHING. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James can you please explain why the page emphysema should be treated differently to the chronic bronchitis page? You say that emphysema is the main topic and no disambig page needed - yet chronic bronchitis is denied the same status? And I would have thought that emphysema as pulmonary emphysema was the main topic? --Iztwoz (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes chronic bronchitis should probably be redirected to COPD with a hatnote aswell. I can change it to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lancet recently marked Taiwan as a province of People's Republic of China [Reference ] when it is not. How to deal with such issue when contributing to Wikipedia and citing any systematic review and meta-analysis from the Lancet? I don't think I will write anything like "Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in Taiwan, a province of PRC, ... " --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider adding a new policy in WP:MEDRS? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You could, you know, just cite The Lancet for medical information rather than geopolitical statements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay so we are looking at this paper. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30427-1/fulltext

The paper itself does not mention Taiwan.

FB says "This paper follows the guidelines and protocols of the United Nations and World Health Organisation, which reference Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic of China. This makes the study consistent with other international health analyses. Unless and until such guidelines and protocols are changed, there are no plans to alter such references to Taiwan."

So the higher authority is WHO and the UN. China of course sites at the table of both but Taiwan does not. This is politics not medicine. Nothing like this should go in MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

May I have your opinion on this medical issue? Do you agree with the opinion of Wikipedian SinisterLefty? Thanks. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure provided my thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I corrected your spelling - the misspelling was "pain"ful.   ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Atsme. I always appreciate my spelling being corrected :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your being more visible today at both FRAM and at starship's user talk page. It is genuinely appreciated (at least by me). We continue to be fortunate to have you as a community representative to the board. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 ∯WBG^converse 19:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, but with a few concerns that I want to be open about. I read what you said at the Fram page, that you hope to get a statement out as soon as you can, that you are working hard on it, and that you are not happy with the way things are going so far. I think all of that is good, thanks. But I get the feeling, between the lines, that you are getting pushback from some Board members who have a view that is at odds with what many members of the community have been saying, some Board members who really do seem to be of the opinion that the editing community should just shut up and take it. If I'm right about that, that's horrifying. I'd like to believe that a Board discussion about what happened would lead quickly to a consensus that a bunch of things were done badly and that those things are going to be fixed. But that didn't happen, at least not rapidly. Meanwhile, things are really spinning out of control here, with so many admins quitting and nerves very much frayed. I can see good reasons for not unilaterally going public with internal debates, I really do. But I feel like this is increasingly becoming a dire situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If this statement is going to say 1 thing or 12 things that the WMF is committed to doing, that is actual actions, then it seems fair that it's taken so long for such a statement to be released. Buy-in takes time. Disagreement amongst a board over which actions are helpful and appropriate, and which are appropriate for a board as opposed to staff to be doing, is healthy. You commented at FRAM that you might have been wrong to counsel a wait and see approach - I don't know that you are yet. But you're correct that as time passes the damage caused by this becomes greater and so what the statement needs to do also becomes greater. The fact that Doc James is publicly committing to stuff gives me real hope for the first time in over a week. Hence why I thanked him in the first place :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We agree much more than we disagree – and we certainly agree that Doc James is on the right side. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

And I ought to clarify something. In your edit summary you said that my first comment was a conditional thanks. Maybe this is gilding the lily, but I meant it as full thanks, combined with things that I'm worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for what you do. I have been on boards and committees, and I understand that it is hard.

UninvitedCompany 21:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I proposed Red yeast rice for Good article back in January; a reviewer has recently started the review process. Recent edits were made to get from Hold to active review (which will start in a couple of days). You are welcome to look/edit/comment before and during the review process. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:David notMD thank will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Re:[5]

Conceptual, the bot could address these things. However, you'd have to make a feature request at User talk:Citation bot and people can chip it on whether or not the bot should do this, with possibly a follow up WP:BRFA filed (depending on the task).

For the first idea of single vs multiline, see I proposed something like it back in September 2018, but the idea was shot down. It's possible the 'safeguards' should have been made more prominent, but it was decided against. The idea could be revisited. I know I would support it still, but again with the caveats that this is only used on a per-article basis. I don't want my watchlist to be flooded with a bunch of those awful editor-hostile single-line citations that need to be reverted because someone else decided multilined looked 'intimidating'.

For the second, WP:REFPUNCT fixes, that's probably less contentious. That would require a BRFA, but there's nothing conceptually that would make this out of scope for the bot to do. That said, WP:AWB and its powerful WP:GENFIXES has usually been the to-go tool for WP:MOS-related stuff and does a lot more than just moving punctuation around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Headbomb will get to this eventually :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidently, how to get familiar with AWB would have made a great second Tips & Tricks column. Oh well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Would be fine to produce in another venue... I am a little distracted by other stuff currently but like the idea of a Tips and Tricks. We could use one on watchlist optimization for example (gah that is complicated). Or options for color coding text in the edit window. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Shamed to see that you've been caught in the crossfire of the Signpost hostility's spree. I know I shouldn't have to apologize for this, but I hate to see people get shit on on my account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries User:Headbomb. Fusses are short right now. I am fine with taking heat on issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not fussing over taking shit as board member for shit the WMF does. That's what you sign up when you're on the board (and to your credit, you and Jimbo are just about the only people that don't reek of being anti-Mission right now from what I can see). However, there you took shit for having had the gall to disagree with the Signpost staff that something written by an outsider was a good idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs) 05:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

seems on the way to decline[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa yes tempers are exceedingly short these day... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

Are you still on the Board? When I am on Wikipedia, sometimes clicking on an image link sends me to Wikimedia Commons and then when I am on Wikimedia Commons, I have to re-search Wikipedia or press "back." I wish there could be an easy click-link on the side of the page to get back to Wikipedia. Is that possible?

(I realize I may be using the wrong technical terms. Do you follow what I am suggesting or would you like a clarification?)

Possible counterargument question: Could that create more problems I am unaware of regarding the separation of the projects? Or setting a precedent for linking to other projects within the Wikiverse?

Am I sending this suggestion to the right person? If not, who can I direct this towards?

Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TenorTwelve I think that is an excellent idea. A link in the left hand sidebar of Commons that says "return to Wikipedia". Not sure how technically difficult this would be. One could suggest it on Commons or create a phabrictor ticket.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TenorTwelve (what a great username!), you might find a solution if you re-post this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There are several preference settings that determine what happens when you click on an image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

{{tps}} @TenorTwelve: there are competing problems here. If clicking on the image in en.wp takes you to commons itself, then any "go back" needs to interact with your browser's history to know where to go back to. One commons image could be in use on multiple English wikipedia articles and also articles in other languages' wikipedias. However, at the bottom of the commons file page is a list of links to all of them, which is sometimes interesting to help find related articles so you can go back, or go sideways. Unless there were exactly one use in the whole of the wiki world, the commons page itself couldn't know where you came from to get there.

On the other hand, if clicking on the image in en.wp takes you to an en.wp-centric framing of the commons image, that frame would obviously know where you came from. But you would be unable to interact fully with the image because you would not be using the actual location of it. For example, you might accidentally mask it with a local (en.wp) upload or write on its local description page rather than the actual one on commons.

WhatamIdoing is right that there is a preference for controlling what happens when you click on an en.wp-article image. See "Redirect image links to Commons for files hosted there" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. DMacks (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I know you have more important issues to address at the moment, but a reader made an interesting point about hepatitis C ticket:2019062310005101. Coincidentally, I have some consulting experience doing statistical analysis of hepatitis C treatment efficacy, but I don't have enough knowledge to definitively respond. I did provide a speculative response and promised I'd ask someone else to take a look. Not urgent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick just getting to this and it looks like it has been taken care of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James - I'm a Wikipedia editor who contributes in a number of areas. I've had several articles suggested for deletion that seem to meet the Wikipedia criteria and work to address the specific issues that our editors raise. Recently, following the instructions shared, I improved an article and removed the suggested deletion notice as instructed, but the editor proposing them has indicated that I could be banned from editing.

Being blocked would have advantages, given the time it takes to synthesize and document topics, but I very much enjoy contributing. You were a fan of some editors I admire and if possible, I would like to stay and contribute. Would you review my articles and/or recent discussions and offer any advice? If most experienced editors feel I'm off-base, I'm willing adjust my efforts. I would want to know it was the true consensus and the right thing to do first. Your insights could be helpful. The articles and our supporting discussions can be accessed via the recent entries on my talk page. I would be grateful for any suggestions.Cypherquest (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Cypherquest the key to Wikipedia always comes back to the sourcing. What is an appropriate source is topic dependent.

I wondering if here Symbolic_language one could have a paragraph overview of each of the topic areas? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Trazodone often gets prescribed to manage individuals with complaints of poor sleep and depression, including insomnia. The prevalence of disordered breathing is greater than previously thought, with current estimates of 1/3 of the U.S. population having diagnosable OSA being seen as an underestimation for the degree to which anatomical compromises to breathing negatively influence health, including mental health. Trazodone is known to cause orthostatic hypotension, which can lead to syncopy. I have encountered many patients whose injury to the TMJs occurred due to being prescribed a sedative hypnotic or Trazodone for insomnia. Due to dizziness or syncope they suffered a head trauma, or their disordered breathing worsened leading to increased rhythmic masticatory muscle activation, microtrauma to the TMJs, and increased sympathetic activity that dominates the autonomic nervous system. These issues go unrecognized for what they are and the patient is offered more pharmacotherapy for management of symptoms arising directly as a result of their disordered breathing being inappropriately managed by pharmacotherapy. These individuals often have indications of sleep disordered breathing that can be seen during exam, but are missed by physicians who lack training. Many who seek care for their TMD received a diagnosis of OSA or UARS because they were then properly screened for sleep disordered breathing by a clinician who recognized the craniofacial anatomical determinants that are readily visible.

The evidence of the deleterious impact medications can have on sleep has been steadily increasing. Black box warnings were recently issued for some sleep medications that old research had convinced clinicians was 'safe and efficacious'. The research in psychiatry on the use of pharmacotherapy is lagging far behind the foundational sciences exploring the physiology of respiration and breathing and the impact they have on sleep. Researchers and clinicians are slow on the uptake when it comes to the topic of sleep and breathing. They are nearly clueless when it comes to the risk of head trauma and musculoskeletal disorders that occur as a result of that trauma. Current guidelines for many psychotropics are outdated and, frankly, dangerous in some circumstances. I thought to provide a public service and edit a wiki briefly with the knowledge it's taken six years to acquire the hard way.

Anyways, I'm not going to play games fighting over edits on wikipedia. Especially if the references aren't going to be reviewed before what I've said is erased from existence (what's your angle?). The tsunami that is going to roll over medicine in regards to facial anatomy, breathing, and sleep is already starting to crest in dentistry and will eventually drown the medical profession. It's quite staggering how much evidence has accrued. Some clinicians have done digging in old literature that shows the knowledge recognizing this problem dates back over a 100 years (https://vimeo.com/337885855/2e97b37af9). A lot of wikis are going to undergo significant changes to reflect this update in knowledge. For example, think for a moment what would need to happen to the Trazodone wiki in a world in which nearly every sleep medication had black box warnings? That day is coming. Meanwhile I have a 50 page medical appeal to insurers I need to focus on and NAM committee meetings to attend and provide feedback to and after that I'm going to help others navigate the mess everyone is in.

Well, good luck with your gardening, but I think you should spend a little more time expanding your botanical knowledge to discern where the weeds are.

MakesNotSense (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The full text of this https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(10)60302-9/fulltext does not mention trazadone. Refs should generally at least mention the topic they are about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sir. Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Assess_evidence_quality: The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Nevertheless, in

RCTs are deemed to be primary/unfiltered sources. Kinda weird? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes the filtering involves putting a single RCT into context with other such RCTs and potentially the evidence base as a whole. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

  Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Hi Doc James. Sorry to bother, just thought if you have time, I'd ask your wiki/med/expert opinion as to whether we'd consider this article I mainly wrote as a medical article. I tend to think it's more of a society/culture/psychology article. I do use a few primary studies in it, which I think are important for inclusion especially in sociology. As Casliber said in the peer review, it's a major issue to consider. I can see that psychology is a bit of a grey area, however given the lack of expert consensus in psychiatry I approached the article from society and culture perspective. This allowed me to have a bit of leeway with WP:MEDRS in my opinion. Just hoping to improve it to FA review after a bit of time and maybe after Wikijournal consideration. Any comments on peer review also much appreciated if you have time! --E.3 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:E.3 made a few stylistic tweaks. Feel free to revert if you like. With respect to the medical claims, they should at least have MEDRS sourcing. The non medical claims do not really, but should still be based on secondary sources if possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I've completely rewritten Yoga for therapeutic purposes distinguishing magical (medieval), marketing, and medical claims and documenting all three from what I think are the best sources. The medical part makes use of systematic literature review papers and is I hope suitably conservative in its statements. I'd be immensely grateful if you could take a look at it and give me any feedback necessary. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure will take a look in a bit. Working a lot this week though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see (above, below). Well, maybe some yoga will be a therapeutically Fram-free zone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi James, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you have put in over the past few weeks. I know it has been very difficult, and you've done an excellent job of trying to hold this community together. I'm sure I speak for many when I say how grateful this community is for your work, and how lucky we were that you were on the board at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate that User:TonyBallioni. We still, of course, have lots of work to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you thanked me for an edit there. While I certainly appreciate it, you might want to actually make a comment to indicate if the things I said were off or not. Early clarifications like that matter to stem the tide of anger / impressions that this is pussyfooting from people who aren't familiar with how boards work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your statement that boards provide general direction rather than specific instructions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me, tell them! Even if the rest of my summary is inappropriate to endorse as a board member, the clarification about the role and powers of the board would be useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, off to sleep here. Or at least get away from the Fram stuff for a while. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Will catch up there in a bit :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from me, as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

+1Thanks from me, as well.--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And thanks from me, too. There's a lot of discussion about possible shortcomings in the statement, but none of that reflects on you. It's abundantly clear that you (and Pundit and Jimmy) worked on the right side of it. (Maybe everyone needs a little therapeutic yoga, per the talk section below.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as well, nice work. As for the hatha yoga, have you tried the "Wikipedia position"? You bend yourself into a pretzel, add salt, and then editors beat you with broomsticks and pumpkins for just trying to ease everyone's mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope that no one gets WP:Salted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Huge thanks from me too. I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) not to be adding this to the tail end of a much longer list of similar comments from other editors - being awesome seems to be an unexpectedly thankless task. I have no idea how much time and effort this affair must have eaten up, but I imagine that it was significant; I'm a British primary school teacher, and believe that I have some idea of what excessive hours and relentless stress feel like, but I expect your job is a whole other level. Combining that with what has been going on lately is above and beyond, so again, thank you for your work on the board, and for your responsiveness at the various places where this whole issue is being discussed, and for simultaneously (as evidenced in various sections above) continuing to be responsive to regular users going about the business of improving the encyclopedia. Happy independence day when it comes... GirthSummit _(blether) 21:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

He already had his celebration two days ago... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

​Oops - how embarrassing, another assumption bites me in the wotsits. Doc, speaking as a chippy Scot living amongst the English, apologies for misnationalityising you. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 22:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit thanks and no worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's much appreciated. I'm sure resolving this was not easy, especially given that many of the Board members don't share your familiarity with the community and the way it works. I think what you and Katherine have done have kept things from running completely off the rails, and I'm very glad of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)