User talk:85.193.252.19

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (85.193.252.19) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berchanhimez&action=edit&section=new my talk page], or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and suggestion to improve the Pfizer COVID vaccine table to make it more understandable to non-medical people. While you're free to continue contributing as an anonymous user if you prefer, we could use more people helping us out at the Medicine WikiProject - even if your contributions are only minor clarity/understandability issues. Wikipedia should be for everyone, and while a Wikipedia exists in Simple English, I don't think that's an excuse to make our articles here hard to understand. I hope you'll consider making an account and joining us - whether that's just looking for copyediting like the edit you suggested, or whether that's maybe more than that in the future. A lot of our medical articles are admittedly hard to understand - largely due to the fact that many of us who edit in the medical topics on WP have a real life education in the field - so it'd be nice to have a non-medical and/or non-native view on those articles. Regardless, I just wanted to express my thanks again for the suggestion and apologize for not immediately seeing what you saw and were commenting about in the table. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am so impressed :-) It was very nice of you to say so. You sacrificed your time to write so many positive things about my small contribution to Wikipedia. I feel so happy. I can promise that my view will always be non-medical and non-native, though fluency in English is my big dream. I read your post maybe 10 times, not only because it was so nice to me but also because it was written in a very good plain English, which I love. Plain English makes communication more effective, especially for non-native speakers, like me. Native speakers usually know what they want to convey, but language is ambiguous and often illogical, including the grammar itself, which leads to poor understanding, so it is good to have some feedback from readers. I agree with you that Wikipedia should be for everyone. After all someone who starts their PhD in medicine will certainly use more specialized materials. By the way, such ambiguous phrases like "more specialized materials" drive me crazy ;-)
 * When I saw your contribution to the articles like Intravenous therapy or Epidural administration my jaw dropped. Maybe you are a doctor or medical scientist, who still finds time to edit Wikipedia. But regardless who you are - good for you. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Golden hour (medicine): following/after
I was surprised to see this edit in my watchlist (and only partly because I had forgotten I had added the page). I'm assuming, from your fairly distinctive style of edit summary, that you are the same person I spoke to a few months ago editing from a slightly different IP address. If this is the case, can I ask why you felt the need to make this edit again? I thought we had come to an agreement. If it isn't you, I apologise, but since you phrased your edit as a question I feel I may as well attempt to have a discussion. I have changed the article for now, but feel free to discuss it with me either here or on the Golden Hour talk page if you find my point unsatisfactory. I have no stake in this besides the fact that I genuinely believe that the sentence as it is is the most straightforward and clear way of explaining the term. Thanks :) CateFromArcadia (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Civility
On 22 November, an editor using this IP address left that could be considered uncivil. As noted in the Wikipedia civility policy, users should refrain from making such snide remarks as Do you want to sound smart, at the expense of readability? Note that your self-satisfaction is important only to you. If you are not the user who left that remark but you are currently editing using this IP address, I recommend creating an account to avoid confusion with the user who did leave that remark. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that most editors here are not "trying to make life harder". Although anyone in the world is welcome to read articles here, the English Wikipedia is written for English speakers, just as every other Wikipedia is written for speakers of their language. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Word meanings
I don't mean to be harsh, and I don't think you edit in bad faith, but word meanings can be very nuanced. Sometimes your edits change the specific meaning intended. As a hypothetical example, "little" and "small" are generally equivalent. But "hiatus" and "break" have different meanings, especially in the context in which you made your edits. I'm sure some of your changes would make little difference in informal conversation, but they are not encyclopedic. I have some fluency in another language, but I would never try to substitute words with similar but not identical meanings in the language of that Wikipedia. I think you could spend your time more effectively focusing on edits that do not relate to the English vocabulary used in articles. Sundayclose (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of common misconceptions. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Pinging me
Yes, stop pinging me if your only goal is to repeatedly beat a dead horse MONTHS after an issue is over. I didn't mind your pings when you sought an opinion about an edit, but your obsessional inability to let go of some sort of vendetta is not just annoying, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Also don't post such comments on my talk page, including a response to this message. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Sundayclose Here's the thing. That "dead horse" is me, because it was you who attacked me. You reverted my previous 11 edits using the false argument that I would change the meaning. Some of those reverts have been already re-reverted (by me and other Wikipedians), and I am going to restore them all. The issue may be over for you but not for me. I can make one edit a day for a month, which sometimes can take me an hour to find an optimal wording. And then, after a month, you revert most of them, which means that my work was in vain. So now editing Wikipedia is more stressful than pleasurable. Please, excuse the unnecessary sarcasm in my last edit summary. This is what stress does to the brain. But all I wrote there is by all means true. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, stop pinging me on your talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK as you wish. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I still remember you
Responding to your message at my Talk page. You don't appear to be editing anymore, so I don't want to spend a lot of time answering if you're not here to read it. However, I do have a response and some recommendations for you, so if you are still interested, ping me below and I'll respond. Add somewhere in your message if you want to hear from me. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I thought you had decided to ignore me, but now I am pleasantly surprised. I am still here as a reader :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I had to say only applies only for someone who is actively editing, or plans to be. If you're not editing articles anymore, it's moot. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)