Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)

Hello, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! :p —DerHexer (Talk) 21:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DerHexer: Haha, thanks! I appreciate having a bluelinked talk page to start things off right. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on your new position! I'm curious to know how National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health created an in-residence position there. I look forward to hearing how your term sorts out. Good luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chris troutman: Thank you Chris! NIOSH created this position through a contractor that they'd previously used for communications work. If you were wondering why I'm doing this, it's because occupational safety and health is a fairly neglected but incredibly important area on Wikipedia and NIOSH has amazing resources that we could put to great use! Our missions are very much aligned - to educate people about occupational safety and health - so this is a great partnership. :) Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category:WikiProject NIOSH templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Note, your confirmed user flag was removed as you have been upgraded to autoconfirmed. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Agriculture in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Agriculture in the United States page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Women in the workforce

added links pointing to Stress and Environmental toxin

Dichloromethane

added a link pointing to Fatigue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you are planning to make extensive edits on certain articles on safety and other aspects, communication with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry might be helpful. Two things caught my eye, citing blogs and the US-orientation. Sometimes for biomedical themes, reference standards can be very high (see WP:MEDRS) and Wikipedia is often attentive to projecting an international perspective. Regulations coming from a state in the US might seem to some as parochial or US-centric. Just thoughts. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Smokefoot: I'll head over and talk to WPCHEM, thanks. Just to let you know, the NIOSH blog is written by various scientists at the agency and the people there have said specifically that it's intended to summarize and explain research, and it's not a blog written by random people with no training. It's an official CDC/NIOSH source. I know it's US-centric in terms of the OSHA guidelines and such, but in general, as far as I know, most countries have their own occupational safety and health regulatory agencies (e.g. KOSHA in South Korea). I think in general, the information other than the guidelines is helpful and relevant across borders. Thanks for your note! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily. Why don't you provide references for additions such as this or that? --Leyo 11:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Leyo: Hi Leyo, I responded over on WT:CHEMISTRY, but I seem to have misunderstood chembox documentation. All of the PELs and other data are from the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This needs to be shown to any reader (it is not sufficient to tell me). Please use ref tags. --Leyo 19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have been adding the vapor pressures of some organic compounds to their infoboxes. This is useful but since vapor pressure varies rapidly with T, I think it would be better to specify (in parentheses) the temperature at which these values apply. Dirac66 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Dirac66: That's what I get for working late at night....I'll go through and add those posthaste. Thanks for the help! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Acetaldehyde page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I still had your talk page on my watchlist, so I noticed this message and fixed the error for you. Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good job adding the PEL to CaCO₃ - just looking at looking at this as lay reader might the PEL article which they would click on for a description of what the numbers meant doesn't describe PEL very well IMO. For example with calcium carbonate the risk to workers is airborne particulates, touching calcium carbonate as far as I know is quite safe, ingestion is a different matter, and a lump of marble dropping on you would be painful. If you could improve the PEL article that would be great.Axiosaurus (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Axiosaurus: Hi! Thanks for the message! I will definitely be working on the PEL article at some point, it's on my (very long) agenda. All the best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the RDX page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re Adiponitrile, there was a problem with your edit (see "Flash point" in the infobox) because that line has to be a number (which is converted to °C and K). You may want to see what I hope is the fix. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: Thanks very much! I didn't know about that parameter. Learning more about the chembox every day..... :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please check your edit at Boron tribromide. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: I put it in the |FlashPt_notes parameter, is that correct now? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (P.S. - found a couple more places where I screwed this up, if the notes parameter is the correct way to do that I'll go fix those ASAP.) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's great, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that your pings to me did not work and I have mentioned that at WP:VPT#Echo is not working because the developers are gathering information about notification problems. It looks like the #top in your signature (which is seen in the wikitext when editing this section) is causing the software to misbehave. That will probably be fixed soon, but you might consider removing the #top which does not do anything useful. When you look at Special:Preferences under signature, do you have anything in the "Signature" box? If you do, why not try removing it (delete everything in the box) and uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup". It looks to me as if your signature is totally standard except for the #top. It doesn't matter, but do you have any idea where that came from? Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: Hrm, that's really weird. I never put anything in my prefs for signature, so I have no idea how that got in there. I've tried to reset it - let me know if this ping worked! Thanks, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that worked well. Johnuniq (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Health professional, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please look at the first ref in the References section at Chlordane. It is showing an error. I think I can see what it needs to fix it (replace "autogenerated1" with "PGCH"), but it would be better if someone with a clue fixed it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: Thanks for pointing that out, I think it's fixed now. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily. Please don't add Solubility = insoluble. This is an undesired oversimplification. DDT, cyclopentane and other compounds do have a low solubility in water, but it is definitely not zero. --Leyo 00:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Leyo: Would saying 'negligible' be better? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

If a value is available in literature, I do prefer having it quoted, even if it is very low. For the two compounds mentioned above, this is the case. See e.g.

• Record of Cyclopentane in the GESTIS Substance Database of the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

• Record of DDT in the GESTIS Substance Database of the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

--Leyo 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occupational burnout, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attitude and Distress. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I spent a whole day, morning to night, researching and writing a section about the health impact of prolonged sitting. I directly cited articles from ten different medical institutes and journals and for most or all of my citations I included direct quotes from these sources so that anyone could verify them. Here's my version: [1].

I also used a few newspaper articles, and for these I was careful to only use articles that directly quoted studies or researchers involved in studies. For example, I didn't quote a journalist of the Washington Post but instead relayed a quote from a researcher as found in the Washington Post.

I put loads of care into this and you deleted more than half of it with the summaries complaining about my sources.

If you think you found a mistake in my work, could you tell me or raise it on the Talk page? It's obvious I'm willing to put work into this, so if explain your concerns then I'll probably try to address them and we'll end up improving Wikipedia. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Responded on Talk:Sitting! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ethanol page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occupational lung disease, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irritant and IARC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

An IP has broken the boiling point at Diphenylacetylene with this edit. Verifying the value is way above my pay scale, and I'm hoping you will fix it. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)Fixed per sources[2][3]. Temperature was correct, but not the formatting or the pressure for the b.p. Also removed erroneous alternate name, diphenylacetate. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! Sorry I wasn't able to get to this. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

On 8 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flock worker's lung, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that flock worker's lung is a disease caused by inhaling small particles of nylon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flock worker's lung. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bronchiolitis obliterans

added a link pointing to OSHA

Occupational lung disease

added a link pointing to Battery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Emily, can you please return to this nomination and see whether you're satisfied with the response to your review? If so, finish off with the appropriate tick; if not, let doncram know what more needs to be done. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

On 15 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Indium lung, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there have been only ten recorded cases of indium lung as of 2010? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indium lung. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks from the wiki for your help Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occupational lung disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casinos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a minor problem at Methyl acetate. Before your recent edit there was already "FlashPtC = −9" (which I would write as "-9" with a hyphen, rather than fiddle with minus signs which convert inserts automatically). When you added "FlashPtF = 14" the infobox sadly tried to make a range out of the two values, which failed. The two temperatures are very close to each other, but I can't decide which is the "correct" value (I guess your value because it comes with a ref). Anyway, please fix—no reply needed.

• {{convert|-9|C|2}} → −9 °C (15.80 °F)
• {{convert|14|F|2}} → 14 °F (−10.00 °C)

Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

All fixed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This ref Erren, Thomas C.; Herbst, Christine; Koch, Melissa S; Fritschi, Lin; Foster, Russell G; Driscoll, Tim R; Costa, Giovanni; Sallinen, Mikael; Liira, Juha (2013). "Person-directed non-pharmacological interventions for preventing and treating sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work". The Cochrane Library.

is a protocol regarding research they are planning on doing rather than a published review of the research. Thus not the best source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Doc James: Hey, I thought we could cite them for the review material that they include in the intro, which is all I used. If not, I'll go find another source, it's no problem. Thanks, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hum. Let me see what others think. They do have a doi but no PMID Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Yeah, let's get some other input. I don't think they're of lower quality than the introductions of other Cochrane reviews, particularly. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

For journals that have PMIDs as they link automatically to pubmed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Doc James: That seems to be a VisualEditor bug. I'll go fix it Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah thanks. We should get VE to fix the bug yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Definitely, I've talked to James Forrester about it and he says there's a ticket in for it. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Butanone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | LD50 = 2737 mg/kg (oral, rat)<br/>4050 mg/kg (oral, mouse)<ref name=IDLH/>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

About this dif, which I reverted:

 

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: Though the whole paper isn't a review, it does include a review of literature which is what I was citing. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Avian influenza page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Influenza A virus subtype H5N2 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@James Hare (NIOSH): Welcome aboard! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesothelioma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily, Glad to see your new mode of contributions to Wikipedia. Important work! Best wishes, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

	L’étoile des idées brillantes
	for the project WikiProject_Women_scientists LaMèreVeille (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merci beaucoup! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page N95. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi - this is a great addition of content, but it is really WP:TECHNICAL for every day readers (like a farmer who might be using this stuff). I run into this issue with tox content all the time and have not figured out a way to generate content useful for the general public about toxicity, LD50s, NOELS, PELs, etc. What are your thoughts about how to make tox content useful for the general public? Is this something NIOSH has an institutional strategy for? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: Hey! I definitely think it's an issue with toxicology content in general and it's a really tricky balance to hit. My general thoughts on the matter are that not everything we have about toxicology is going to be useful to the general public but is still useful to maintain in the encyclopedia for a somewhat more specialized audience. For example, we include LD50s in the chembox but not everyone is interested in that information; despite that, we include it because it's encyclopedic in nature. I think safety limits are important to the "random farmer"-type audience; Wikipedia is a great way to help people know what the safe limits are for chemicals they're exposed to in the workplace, especially in countries where those limits don't have to be told to workers necessarily. James is a little more focused on NIOSH's strategy for communications so he may have some more interesting thoughts. I think for now the best we can do is add tox information and organize it from most to least general interest, like how in WP:MED we have a very accessible lead and then, y'know, histology and pathophysiology. (By the way, I'm really glad that someone else is keeping an eye on these articles and writing about toxicology and chemical safety. :D) I lo÷ok forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind reply! I have thought a lot about this over the years and I think we really need a WP:TOXRS and associated style guide. There are so many bad papers out there where people dump a bunch of X on cells and write splashy articles about "X is toxic!" which their schools put press releases out about and then the pupular media picks up and we get Wiki-hysteria. So important that content comes from reviews written by people who understand toxicology (attention paid to route of exposure, duration and levels of exposure, and of course translating data from animal work into something applicable to humans). We have so many articles where editing about tox is ham-handed and written by chemophobes who don't understand what they are writing about. (so much bad content on endocrine disruption, and see for example Bisphonol A which was greatly improved back in May but still has a long way to go) Every now and then I go looking for tox experts who would be willing to help with writing a sourcing guide and style guide.

And about the content that we generate, I really don't think that the following "In the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has designated a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for dichlorvos in the workplace as a time-weighted average (TWA) of 1 mg/m³. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has set a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 1 mg/m3, time-weighted average. The IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) value is 100 mg/m³" is useful to a farmworker. I am not at all opposed to providing technical detail and think it is good that we have it, but we do want to provide people with useful content.. not HOWTO, but useful.

Thanks again! Maybe James will have some insight.... Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: I absolutely think a TOXRS modeled on MEDRS is a great idea, and I'd be happy to help draft one if you want. There is so much garbage out there about "toxins" and there is so much great research done by competent researchers. And of course, NIOSH has collected lots of useful toxicology data (in RTECS and the Pocket Guide) that we can use. I can also ask around and see if there are any toxicology researchers who would be willing to look at a draft of TOXRS. :) My difficulty in providing people with non-technical content is that it so often comes off as HOWTO, and I haven't really found a good way to balance that. NIOSH puts out a lot of HOWTO-type content but that belongs on other projects and it's hard to translate that into encyclopedic language, so I tend to err on the side of overly technical, especially since my background in molecular biology is all technical. One thing I think people do find useful is explanations of how they can get exposed and what the symptoms of exposure are, but there's hardly any of that in our articles. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yay, same page. I am thinking encyclopedic content about toxicity would be something that puts the route of exposure and accepted levels in plain English. Taking a pesticide for example: People can be exposed to glyphosate formulations through residues left on food. The (agency) has established levels of acceptable exposure though residues at (so much) per day for an adult, so much per day for a child, and (so much per day) for pregnant women. Reviews have found that the residues actually found on food are (whatever sources say - under/at/below limits). People who work with glyphosate formulations in factories, farms, or other work are exposed differently to glyphoate and at higher amounts. The (agency) has established levels of acceptable exposure on skin at (so much) per day for an adult and (so much per day) for pregnant women; the levels of acceptable exposure by breathing vapors is at (so much) per day for an adult and (so much per day) for pregnant women." Something like that. There could be a subsection that provides the animal data through which those levels are established, but there should also be some general text that we can use over and over, that explains at a very high level why these experiments are done and how the data is extrapolated.... something like that. what do you think? Thanks so much for asking around about people willing to help. The question I ask toxicologists, is the following. In my view, this is The Gold Standard for a toxicology review that we should use a source in WP. Is there any documentation (training manual, textbook, article) that explains how toxicologists go about reviewing the literature and evaluating what original research papers to rely on and which to discount, and why?" I ask that because if you actually read that whole thing (and I have, several times) the work they do evaluating the published literature is amazing - careful and responsible. I think that WP:TOXRS should say that reviews that do that kind of analysis of the underlying sources, are the preferred sources for tox content. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I really like that text - and I think we could modify it for everything from industrial exposure to elements to occupational exposure to pharmaceuticals (which I know we discussed in the past regarding aspirin production). What if we combined all of this into a TOXMOS as well? Then we'd have a nice central place to put resources and boilerplate text. I'm going to run off and make a user subpage to start collecting useful boilerplate texts (User:Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)/Boilerplate) - feel free to add/revise. I've emailed some people at NIOSH and have asked who to talk to, and I'll keep you posted on that. I'm so glad we're on the same page here. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: P.S.: I just did a quickie copyedit on dichlorvos to make the occupational exposure business more readable - do you think that's a good start/could that text be adapted elsewhere? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have prepared a draft at Wikipedia:Writing about toxicology. It is a combined style guide (really more of a content guide) and source guideline, though I am not sure that toxicology requires sourcing standards that depart significantly from WP:MEDRS. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pinging Jytdog. Please let me know what you think of the proposed guideline. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2-Butoxyethanol acetate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

On 15 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Occupational hazard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that occupational hazards can be as diverse as infectious diseases, asbestos, poison ivy, and noise? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupational hazard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Emily, in parathion methyl you wrote that

Parathion methyl is known for being in the dirty dozen, 12 major pollutants on a global scale recognized by the Rotterdam Convention.[4]

The ref you gave only says that it's on the Pesticide Action Network's dirty dozen, and our article on the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (which I think is what you meant, where dirty dozen links to) doesn't mention it at all. shoy (reactions) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Shoy: Hi Shoy, That was part of what I translated from fr.wiki and haven't finished checking everything over - you can go ahead and fix it if you want, or I'll get to it in the next day or so. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got it, and also fixed on fr.wiki. shoy (reactions) 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parathion methyl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dirty dozen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bronchiolitis obliterans page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Emily -- I saw your recent edit to Mica, and I have no doubt at all that the information you added is not only correct but also a helpful addition to the article. I was just wondering, though, whether you could either explain or link "mccpf" for the non-expert. I didn't see anything in the linked article Permissible exposure limit, so I looked at Parts-per notation. I saw quite a bit of information that seemed related, but I couldn't find that exact combination of letters in either the section Parts-per notation#Parts-per expressions or in the large table in Parts-per notation#SI-compliant expressions. If that's not the article to which the abbreviation could be linked, perhaps there is another one. I'm not an expert in science, but I'm interested in it, so I try to understand everything in articles I read. Corinne (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Corinne! Nice to meet you. :) I'm surprised it's not in the parts-per notation article, since it's used pretty commonly. I'll add it there and link it from mica. (To save you a click - 1 mppcf is 0.1 mg/m³). All the best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily, I did a bit of research, and mppcf looks to be million particles per cubic foot[4]. This would not be a dimensionless measurement, and therefore not suitable for inclusion in parts-per notation. The conversion from mppcf to mg/m³ would also be dependent on the average mass per particle, so dependent on the material being measured, and not a fixed "1 to 0.1". If you have no objections, I will revert the addition at parts-per notation; there is probably an opportunity to create an article on the mppcf measure. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a wee heads up to let you know I've removed the addition at parts-per notation, per the discussion on that Talk page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HN1 (nitrogen mustard), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barking cough. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It appears that you may have translated part or all of Parathion methyl from the corresponding article on French Wikipedia. That's great, or at least would have been great if you hadn't inadvertently translated a copyvio (I don't see how you could possibly have known that, it was just bad luck). However: when you translate from another Wikipedia, just as when you re-use content within this one, you must, under the terms of our licence, provide proper attribution for work of the editors who created the content. For translations, the {{translated page}} template is a handy way of doing this. A belt-and-braces approach is described here. Please let me know if you need help with this (here would be fine). If there are other pages you've translated, please go through them and provide attribution for them too. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks so much for your message! I definitely had no idea it was a copyvio - boo - and used the content translation tool, which I thought did attribution. Fail. I've stuck {{translated page}} on the talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Emily! Since we're on the topic, could there be other translations where the attribution got overlooked? Do you feel like doing a lightning review of your contribs to check? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers: That's the only translation I did, so I think we're good! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sodium acetate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled across an unusual editor. I don't want to make a fuss at this stage, but I don't want to leave what might be an error in a chembox either, so remembering your work in that area I wonder if you are in a position to check the following edit from March 2013 which changed "odorless" to "vinegar": diff

I assume the edit is junk but no one has complained in nearly three years. pubchem thinks "odorless". I should just revert it, but despite the evidence I would like confirmation because I have no idea. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I just noticed these four edits to Potassium alum. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: NIOSH does have plenty of information on chemical odors (when they've been documented)! Sodium acetate does indeed smell like vinegar when heated to decomposition, so I've clarified that in the article. I didn't find anything on potassium alum's odor on the NIOSH website but I can poke around if you'd like. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's ok, thanks. Their other contributions focus on compiling large lists of climate data and I was concerned the chembox changes might have been arbitrary. All good, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) & Johnuniq, Looking at the source[5], the vinegar odor appears to be that of the decomposition product (acetic acid), not of the substance (sodium acetate) itself - on this basis, suggest that if we are describing the substance, we should use odorless. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to leave this for others but will mention that my OP above has a pubchem link that says "odorless". Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I'd be okay with just saying "odorless" but noting somewhere in the article that acetic acid is one of its decomposition products. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm trying to get images for the articles Interview and College interview to illustrate the idea of videoconferencing via the Internet. I've noticed there are multiple images of your face, both from the front and from the side. I would like to make a combined image using two of your face images (front & side -- that is, one in a monitor, one facing a monitor) with diagrams showing computer links to a satellite, connecting to the front/side image of an interview coach (so far I have only a front image of him but I may use software to skew it to the side a bit, for the side image?). Since all four face images will be in one image, the face images will be scaled to be smaller, to fit inside the image. I'm not such a great artist but the idea is to illustrate how videoconferencing can happen, with a coach helping a person learn the art of interviewing. So if okay with me let me know otherwise I'll look for another user.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tomwsulcer: Hi Tom! Go for it, that sounds educational and interesting. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here is the image in Interview. I figured that if I did screen-on-screen that I didn't have to fret with different angles of faces; still I think it illustrates the idea of videoconferencing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely an improvement! Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I read your article in the Signpost. Good idea, great article. I wonder if you have heard of Mary Anning? ^{Why the "f-" and "f-ing"?} Corinne (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Needlestick injury page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see you're in the news today. Many congrats! ^.^ --Project Osprey (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, congratulations! Here you are in the BBC.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

We haven't 'met' on WP, but let me add my congrats, too. Did you see this piece in the New Yorker?

Re your username, very straightforward – I like the transparency. Sca (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all very much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

yes congrats and thanks for all your great work! Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Emily. Question for you.. I have been working on e-cigarette stuff, and one of the many issues around these devices and the associated e-liquids, is the toxicity of nicotine. NIOSH's page (see here) was posted in 1994 and last reviewed in Dec 2014. It says: "The fatal human dose has been estimated to be about 50 to 60 mg". In the e-cig community, this 2014 article is widely cited, claiming that the human lethal oral dose appears to be 0.5 g - higher by a factor of 10.

I don't know if this is appropriate to ask you this, but is it possible for you to see if NIOSH will look at their page on nicotine and at least address that 2014 paper? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: I'm happy to pass on the message, no promises though. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

completely understood. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M-Xylylenediamine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shock. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

{{edit fully-protected}} Please update this userpage to indicate that Emily has finished up with her WiR. For inspiration, see User:LilaTretikov (WMF).--Judtojud (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

An edit request is not needed for a user page—all that is needed is a comment on their talk page (here). Keilana (see User:Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)) is active and will do whatever is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I haven't finished my WIR, I'm simply taking a leave of absence. I won't finish until next summer. :) However, since I'm on leave for another week and a half (ish), any questions you have about our NIOSH work should be directed to User:James Hare (NIOSH); he'll be able to answer you more expediently. Keilana (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ,4'-Methylenebis(o-chloro aniline). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#,4'-Methylenebis(o-chloro aniline) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 20:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect 3-Hydroxy-β-lactone has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 9 § 3-Hydroxy-β-lactone until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply