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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks so much! --Almaty (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Almaty, you should probably take a step back on removing these consensus templates other than discussing them. You've removed them once or twice in a couple of cases; that's enough to attract attention from other editors who may agree with you and if so can make the next revert, but you should not revert again. These articles are sanctioned; you can find more information about that at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almaty, that page is pretty hard to follow as is; could you go back and fix your missing signature here? Thanks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[[User:SandyGeorgia]] I attempted to do that yesterday but i accidentally broke the page and removed about 30kb of text, so I reverted. Sorry! --Almaty (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First let me give my apologies on your not so welcoming welcome to project COVID-19. Your a long time medical editor and your opinion matters more than you know. Like other big/very active projects we are full of different personality with different approaches to situations. Pls don't let the responses from a few deter you from continuing to contribute to COVID atricles. Most old timers understand that Banner blindness is a real thing so have not really been involved with those talks...as they are generally fruitless and have no change on the readers experience. We have many different types of contributors....some like yourself add content for our readers were others don't have that knowledge but wish to help on the back side of things.....sometimes for good other times not so good.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the events leading up to your topic ban and the discussion that lifted it, are you sure you're not heading down the same road again? The whole point of general sanctions on hot-button topics is to damp down the ability of editors to add poor content, and the only bulwark we have against poor content is to insist on the highest standards of sourcing. I would have hoped that as an experienced editor, you would have understood that and done your best to support it, not undermine it. Please take a moment to review what you wrote when asking for the topic ban to be lifted and the replies to that. --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC):User:RexxS[reply]

I support high quality sourcing, I haven't been edit warring, I disagree with you as an administrator having to add an additional sanction simply for adding non MEDRS content. The sanction should be for edit warring. MEDRS is a guideline, not policy, it cannot be used as a bludgeon, see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop case. If someone doens't follow medrs, myself or others will remove it. --Almaty (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not appreciate your tone. MEDRS is a guideline, and exemptions apply. They are removed and discussed as per the normal process. We agree with finding medrs where possible, but it is not always possible to make a good article. You are being combative referring to my previous disussion which has nothing to do with this discussion, of you attempting to unilaterally impose a guideline without discussion, which is against policy. --Almaty (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:RexxS I have asked for the review of your actions towards me by an uninvolved administrator. --Almaty (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that I am the writer of a medical featured article which does not use WP:MEDRS compatible content to make all medical claims. Because indeed, exemptions do apply --Almaty (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't appreciate your tone. Nor do I appreciate you interfering with my posts - see WP:TPG. MEDRS is a guideline that enjoys project-wide consensus and the rare exceptions must be supported by good reasoning, mot just on any editor's whim. The rest of your comment is pure nonsense. There's no exemption from sourcing policy and guidelines "to make a good article". If you think that an administrator can't impose a sanction without discussion, I suggest you take a good hard look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and see just wrong you are.

If you're now telling me that you're going to deliberately breach MEDRS at the COVID-19 article, then I will topic ban you again from the area to prevent disruption. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coronavirus disease 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]