User talk:Berchanhimez

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For the forseeable future, I will be quite busy in real life which limits my ability to check Wikipedia and even more so to respond to queries. If I am needed for anything urgently, please email me and I will do my best to find time to respond. Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. You may feel free to ping me using the {{ping|Berchanhimez}} template to ensure I see your response.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Issue 22—May 2024

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter. I was inspired to collect this after seeing several medicine-interested editors nominate their first good article. Please review a GA nomination if you have time, and help support our colleagues' efforts:

Recognized content (since April 1)

National Public Health Laboratory (Sudan) nom. FuzzyMagma, reviewed by Snoteleks Nighat Arif nom. Launchballer, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Nominated for review

Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus Adrenal crisis nom. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath Exhaustion disorder nom. Draken Bowser Bite registration nom. Candle1, under review by Esculenta Charles Wambebe nom. Vanderwaalforces Polio Undergoing featured article review. You can contribute at the FAR page or the article talk page.

WP:MED News

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
• Maintenance category of the month: Articles with topics of unclear notability (I've listed just the 36 that start with "A"; there are 398 total).

  Note for the curious: 24,211 of the 57,554 articles (42%) tagged as part of WP:MED have some maintenance tag.

Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine at 21:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Loki (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As your co-defendant, I just wanted to thank you, for your vigour in pointing out what is the absolute truth, to apologise that I don't have the inclination or the energy to pursue this much farther, and to offer a word or two of advice. You are right on the basic facts, but I think you've fallen down the same rabbit hole I have, which is to err on the side of indignant over-reaction. I'm not only talking about the ANI thread.

Loki's dishonesty, the egregious supervote close, the open gamesmanship from editors like Liliana etc. - these have been most effectively fought by contributions that have been forensic, like Chess and Astaire's early rebuttals, and less by those that were indignant. I don't consider it impossible that Loki is gaslighting for the purpose of generating outrage, in order to distract from the cool dismantling of his arguments earlier. So my advice is to take a breath, and maybe a break. Even if this travesty of a close isn't overturned, the subject can always be revisited later. There are reams of evidence on reliability that weren't even explored at all (like IPSO findings for and against the Telegraph) that can be brought up at any future RfC.

In the meantime, I think arguing on this forum on these terms is counterproductive, even though you are right. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask what the superscript /r/ in the transcription of your name is supposed to mean? I don't think that there is such a standard usage in the IPA, if this is meant to transcribe some peculiarity of the pronunciation of any one existing accent (your own?). Or are you perhaps trying to leave open the possibility of its being pronounced both in a rhotic and in a non-rhotic accent of English by other people? But then you seem to be ruling out a retroflex vowel, which is how most Americans would pronounce it in their type of rhotic accent whether they want to or not. Also, I think an /r/ in parentheses would have been more unambiguous in this case. Anonymous44 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to lie, I created it a long time ago, and it very well could've just been an error. But I like the look of it, it's never meant to be perfectly accurate anyway :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]