User talk:Berchanhimez

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 (~~~~).

Regarding your comment[edit]

Very strange for you to come onto my page randomly because I complained to another user about disrespectful comments being made towards me. Have you considered that Alexbrn had just accused me of stalking prior to my comment about the disrespect, or that he had falsely accused me of being a meat puppet, or that he had told me to piss off? Its important to avoid selective enforcement. Thank you. Gsonnenf (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gsonnenf, he accused you of stalking because you were stalking him. Commenting on past punishments/etc is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. You were accused of being a meat puppet because it is very strange that you keep randomly showing up to edit in controversial areas without editing in between, and you seem to have a very good understanding of Wikipedia policies, that would not be expected of a "new" editor. You're free to report Alexbrn to administrators if you feel that "piss off" is a violation of policy, but note that as you already know, your edits will be scrutinized as well, and that harassment/stalking is a much more serious offense than one "piss off" comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It is totally clear I was NOT stalking him. It is totally clear that I am not a meat puppet. You assessment of these is completely wrong. And its totally clear that if you have a suspicion of these things that you should take them to dispute resolution and not harass people. Just as it is inappropriate for him to make false baseless accusations, it is also inappropriate for you to make the same false baseless accusations. I have nothing further to say to you except to refrain from canvasing my page, and refrain from making false accusations at me. Gsonnenf (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


I respect you as a fellow medical professional and Wikipedia editor. As I have said to ToBeFree, I agree the topic of COVID-19 origins fall under WP:MEDRS, and while WHO team’s report is MEDRS, it does not include forensic or phylogenetic evidence. Scientists like Richard Ebright have called for a forensic investigation since May of last year [1]. David Relman in November [2]. Even Marc Lipsitch broke his silence [3]. We are now in controversy territory. Care is advised.

You seem to be advocating for administrators to use special provision of Wikipedia policy to place indiscriminate topic bans, in WP:AN [4] and WP:MEDICINE [5]. You are not the only medical professional on Wikipedia and it behooves you to discuss MEDRS with us in good faith instead of accusing us of disruption and advocating for topic bans where they are not due. The WHO is not a cathedral and science is not a religion. The WHO can make retractions and addendums as with any MEDRS, and if they didn’t ever do they, they wouldn’t be a MEDRS. The WHO DG’s remarks are clearly an addendum to the WHO team’s report, acknowledging its faults.

You and I probably agree on most things, but If we disagree that the WHO team’s report can be read without the WHO DG’s remarks, then we can go to an RFC. I will assure that a representative from the WHO participates in the RFC, as per [6]. Feel free to email me. CutePeach (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How to construct RFCs[edit]

Hi, I have a question about a comment you made at the RS noticeboard: "I think it was unhelpful to start this RfC before crafting it in such a way that it not only can be discussed adequately, but can be controlled and useful."

How does one construct an RFC in such a way that it can be controlled and useful? Based on what I've seen at Wikipedia, if involved editors are determined to dominate a RFC that can't be prevented, because there is no way to control who comments in what sections of a page. I think that outcome was likely inevitable in the current RFC no matter what way Ferahgo the Assassin chose to structure it. But I could be wrong. If there is a way to construct an RFC so that outcome can be prevented, I'd like to understand it. --AndewNguyen (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please also see [7]. Whenever you have the time, your input there would be valuable. --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your AE filing[edit]

You've filed complaints that do not rise to the level of DS-sanctionable. Several are not documented by the links you provide. I suggest you consider withdrawing this complaint to avoid a lot of needless colloquy, a lot more work on your part, and a possiblity of boomerang. Please consider. It's not interfering with editorial collaboration, and it's just not a big problem, even if you find it unbearably annoying. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It is interfering with editorial collaboration by derailing the discussion. Please feel free to make this comment on the AE filing if you want. I would appreciate if you would refrain from making threats and attempting to manipulate people into doing what you want by threatening them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Berchamhimez. I am confused. What is the threat to which you refer? Certainly none intended from me, nor do I have any opinion about the substance of your editorial discussions. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I'm sorry - I interpreted your comment as threatening a block or similar unless I retracted the filing, which on re-reading it I realize was a vast overreaction and misinterpretation of what you said. I won't be retracting it, but I do welcome your comments on the filing. Apologies for the comment to you here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an Admin. I'm afraid that conclusion testifies to a certain rashness and lack of fact-checking on your part. I think that is consistent with my view that your AE filing was rash and ill-advised. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
As I stated in the filing, this has not been a rash decision at all. On the contrary, I've been trying to avoid this for months - but the behavior today certainly made it clear that he would not disengage even after being asked explicitly three times to do so, thus I felt (and an uninvolved admin felt) it was necessary to file this request to get more uninvolved eyes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Asking is fine. If the other person doesn't agree -- well then you know. It's always possible for you to be the one to disengage too. It's not clear to me why you think this is not symmetrical. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You clearly understood what I was saying at AE. Unless something new comes up, I think I've said enough there, but thought you might be interested in some background with regards to the point I was making with regards to opinion sources. I got into a similar argument with another editor which led to this AE report. A certain group of admins led by MastCell wanted me topic-banned. Unfortunately, there is only a small number of admins that regularly participate at AE who have any objectivity.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump reinstatement[edit]

IMO, Be, you narrowly missed a TBAN at the AE filing you made against JzG. And yet your behavior continues unchanged. If you ever make another personal smear at another American Politics editor, I'd say it's quite likely you will be banned. Nobody wants to see this happen. Please concentrate on sourcing, policy and article text in your edits and comments. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, that's what I've been concentrating on - it's you and Soibangla that have refused to respond to my legitimate concerns with sourcing, policy, and article text. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla that have refused to respond is flatly and demonstrably false and I'd appreciate a ping whenever you impugn my integrity. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You have ignored my requests and my warning, and I will be seeking sanctions against you when I have time to do so. Sorry you chose this course. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on my draft and I note you have rejected it. I was very careful with copyright and plagiarism when I was researching the subject but will review all the source material again to be certain. I also read all the relevant Wikipedia policies on copyright and how to draft an article generally before commencing this work. Nonetheless, the suggestions around tone to be less "flowery" and more "encyclopaedic" are noted. Please note, the ANU/Australian History of Biography entry on James Gillies contains several factual errors which they are in the process of amending. Further improvements will be made to this article prior to re-submission.

Gentle reminder to look at FIGS (apparel) request[edit]

Hi Berchanhimez, First, I want to tell you I appreciate all the help you have provided towards improving the FIGS (apparel) article so far. Can we continue the conversation at Talk:FIGS_(apparel) discussing the neutrality of the Marketing section? I would love to hear what you have to say about improving the NPOV there. Thanks again for all your help. Todd at Figs (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Todd at Figs: Looked at and made some changes - I'm not in agreement about reducing the criticism further given the number of sources it has (see our policy on due weight on how much "room" in articles is given to topics) but you're certainly welcome to ask for a third opinion if you think another editor's opinion would be helpful on better balancing it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

About Draft LiveWorkPlay[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I hadn't seen the article that was deleted since probably 2018, I don't know exactly what was there but I can remember going to that page to help locate sources that I wanted to share, so I think it had a lot of secondary sources, but I really don't know, as I don't think there's a way of looking at it. My suspicion is that many of the sources "broke" because it is a 25 year old organization and media sites move things around. With the draft I just made I think there are at least 20 secondary sources. I take it newspapers are particularly valued, there's about 10 of those references. There are many television references as well but just like newspapers they don't always keep their stories online, so some of them are YouTube links but they are from actual broadcasts from CTV and CBC, major news networks. I would definitely appreciate your help with this, as I think I must be missing something about sourcing. To me that article is sourced at much higher standard than anything I ever wrote for any of my three university degrees or articles I have had published in journals. I think it is great that Wikipedia has such high standards, but I have read the guidelines about the importance of sources and notability, and I have also looked at articles from similar organizations, and typically they don't come close. So, I'm a bit confused but ready to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian (talkcontribs) 29 May 2021 03:45:33 (UTC)

@Tony - would it be possible to give Iamthekanadian any sources (not the whole text of the article) that may be helpful from the deleted article - keeping in mind I note that Tony doesn't feel like it should be undeleted in its entirety? @Iamthekanadian: regardless of if you can get sources from the deleted article, you may wish to check the internet archive ( WayBack machine - it archives websites and you may find some "broken" sources there. Alternatively, if you have information as to the paper it was in, and the title, you can attempt to search Google News for archives of them as well. I don't know enough about the organization to be able to dig deeper and help with proving the notability, but I'll note that your noticing that newspapers are generally good is generally correct. Furthermore, note that broadcast news frequently doesn't help with notability because a 3-4 minute short clip, especially about local news, doesn't really qualify as significant coverage in the sense of the word here. I'd caution you to not use other articles as a baseline - other articles may not have gone through the AfC process, and there's millions of articles on Wikipedia - it's more likely that they just haven't been deleted yet because nobody has come across them. If CTV and CBC ran broadcast stories about it, it seems likely to me that they would have published an online article about it - nowadays it's virtually unheard of that a broadcast story isn't accompanied by something on their website - and linking to those stories instead of to Youtube videos of the broadcast news is going to help greatly. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a single newspaper source there aside from the Ottawa Sun that provides significant coverage of the organization - the Ottawa Citizen article is more about the people and is an interview, the CTV is about the awards gala, and I don't see any other newspaper articles in the submission. I won't decline it - I'll leave it for someone else to review, but it doesn't appear to me that sources exist to overcome the notability barrier for this organization at this time. Please feel free to keep editing it - even if you are waiting for review you can keep making edits to add sources or replace sources with better ones, and another reviewer can take a look. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Fix ping: @TonyBallioni: -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I am honestly not sure we are talking about the same draft?!? I feel that I have screwed up somehow. I just adjusted the references to it is more clear what they are, in case that's the problem. There's at least 7 newspaper articles, but I also don't quite understand, there are other newspaper articles about the organization, should I just keep listing them somewhere in the article? Like, do I add new content just so I can reference more articles even if I don't think that content would be good for the article? I only listed them if they supported content that seems to make sense. I understand that I can't just look to an article about other organizations because perhaps it is not a good article that just hasn't been reviewed, but 38 sources for a brief article, only one that is from the organization's website, I guess I would really appreciate an example of a similar organization that is done properly, so I can understand. I truly don't get it, I would really benefit from an example if that is possible. I will definitely work on improving it, I am just not sure how at this point. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, I see that there's a lot more references that are clearly to the Toronto Business Journal - maybe I just missed those due to how they were presented. I understand what you're thinking about not adding things as references unless they directly support content - but you can always add more resources under an "External links" header at the bottom of the page - and if you add content that is supported by them they can be transitioned to refs. Note that they won't be able to remain as external links if the article's approved, but in that case they wouldn't be needed anymore really. I'd say a decent list of references can be found in Games Done Quick - which is a similar type of organization. That page lists references from the following (among others): Hollywood Reporter, Kotaku, Ars Technica, Polygon, IGN, PC Gamer, The Verge (VOX), and VentureBeat - showing that it has received significant coverage in sources within its field, but also significant coverage in multiple (inter)national news sources - getting multiple full length articles about the organization in such sources. I'm not saying you have to remove any of the sources you have necessarily - you'll note that page has dozens of links to primary sources to support specific parts of it (which may or may not be appropriate) - but you need to show that this organization has gotten significant coverage in more than just local news for it to be notable. Large newspapers that are nationally recognized such as the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, and things like that (just to name from my memory) would be the best things to add - if you can show independent coverage by large, nationwide newspapers like that, even if it's just 2-3 articles, that would cement notability. The bottom line is that unfortunately not every organization merits a Wikipedia article - and if it's only gotten local coverage, it's likely the case for this organization too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, Games Done Quick is really nothing at all like LiveWorkPlay (they seem to do a video game racing fundraiser, sounds cool and a lot more likely to get media coverage than a charitable organization that actually works with marginalized people - but it seems to me that the notability concept is getting a bit twisted up - to be notable in one's field can look very different from being notable in another). You know more about it than I do, but surely locally-focused organizations tend to get local coverage? Unless the notability concept is suggesting that local just isn't notable, because unless LiveWorkPlay gets into a scandal or mass tragedy or something, it isn't going to make CNN. Anyway, I guess I will just pile on excessive amounts of references, I already added Globe and Mail, so I will just keep at it. Thanks. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian It's already improved from where it was at, and like I said I'll let another person review it so that you have a fresh set of eyes on it. Best of luck. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! After working on this for 10 hours, it's nice to hear something positive. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have run into an ongoing problem with a focus on my totally transparent and fully declared status as an employee of the organization, and despite getting help from others and ending up with what seems to be a very encyclopedic, very neutral, well sourced article, I am not sure where things stand - I am concerned that there's a punitive element to what has transpired. If and when you have a chance, if you could give the article the once over, that would be great. I feel all of the changes have been good and there's been some productive discussion mixed in with the personalized negativity. Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, I'll say this - I've had your talkpage on my watchlist, and I tend to agree with you that you do not need to declare as a "paid contributor" - but others have different opinions and that's not a battle I'm willing to fight. I'll try and take a look, do you mind if I directly edit the draft? Note that I'm not planning on reviewing it again anyway (I'd prefer a person with none of this backstory review it - that's likely to your benefit as well) but if I did directly edit it I'd certainly not approve (or decline) it in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not sure why I would mind if you directly edit, so the answer is please go ahead, for sure. I am just trying to figure out how after all the declaring of conflict of interest, agreeing to be labeled a paid contributor, and telling my whole story which is clearly evidenced by the facts, that I cannot just move ahead with trying to contribute, even after other editors have had a go. I can sort of see how my asking questions about the paid label has not been well received by some, so I figure the only defense against a punitive response is to continue doing what I am supposed to be doing - working at a neutral and properly sourced article with other non-involved contributors. Thanks, no rush, any contributions welcomed. Also, if you know someone with no backstory who can review it, I think that would be best Iamthekanadian (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Iamthekanadian, not sure if I'll get to it tonight, but either tonight or tomorrow I'll go in and make the language "less advertizey" - it's hard and I don't fault you at all, because tons of people, even those not connected to subjects, tend to "over-puff" their writing. I didn't even realize I was doing it in my everyday life until I worked on Wikipedia. I won't go out requesting specific reviewers for you, but I'll do my best to help the prose (i.e. the text itself) pass muster so the only thing you need to worry about is more sources for notability :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! What I find challenging about some of this, is that even if I was writing or contributing to an article where I have no attachment whatsoever, I would not find any of that advertizey or puffy or whatnot... so it's not to do with my attachment to the topic, it is to do with the somewhat subjective and overall cultural norms here, which is fine, appreciate the help. Interesting development in the tea room as well, looks like some others are stepping up to say that the policy doesn't actually automatically designate someone who works for an organization as a paid editor, which really was all I was trying to say. I think perhaps a lot of people don't have experience with what it means to work for a community-based nonprofit where we do have paid jobs but are constantly doing all sorts of volunteerism and advocacy that is never going to be a part of a job evaluation and definitely not going to earn us an extra dime (I don't even have the possibility of a salary increase, bonus, whatever, even if I wrote the most spectacular article ever and it was featured on CNN) Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Iamthekanadian - it was a few minor parts - like calling out the "highest award given", and terms like "framework", "advocates", "unique housing partnership", etc - these terms may be okay if secondary sources make a big deal over how "unique" it was, but it doesn't really lose much information to remove them for now and then consider readding them when more sources are found. I also tagged quite a few primary sources with a template after the reference - while the sources are reliable for what you're using them for, a guideline on Wikipedia is our "due weight" guideline. To summarize, we generally don't include information such as the information I tagged unless it's gotten at least some coverage in secondary sources such as the news. I left it all in because it all looks to me like information that likely is at least mentioned in some of the news sources (or perhaps others that just haven't been found/added yet) - and if those sources can be replaced, it would strengthen the article even more. This is especially true of the awards - Wikipedia doesn't like to have lists of every award an organization/person has gotten, and we use the "due weight" concept to try and decide which ones should be included - basically, if the award didn't get any coverage other than from the group issuing it and the person/group receiving it, it's likely that that award doesn't merit inclusion. If you can find secondary sources for some of those awards, then they can stay, but otherwise, I'd recommend removing at least the ones I tagged as I don't think they're due weight for the article. This is another aspect of what people are saying may be slightly "promotional" - while it may be true, it may not be encyclopedic to include - and the inclusion of awards based on primary sources is something that generally signals that someone's trying to "talk up" a company/organization. I'm not saying this is what you're doing at all - I'm not sure if anyone's linked you to the due weight policy before and it's hard to get a handle on all the different guidelines on Wikipedia - but just trying to explain why some people may think that's what you're doing even if it's not your intent. Hopefully the tagging of sources gives you some signals as to where the information could be better sourced to show "hey, it's not just me and the company that care, but independent secondary sources do too" - which would go a long way towards making it not appear promotional. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that is awesome (the information and how you explained it). I will follow up as soon as I can. I guess the reality of the black hat sort of people ruining Wikipedia has a lot of experienced people on edge and that's why some have been so aggressive or even accusatory, it's just so over the top if they knew the context on my end, they would laugh along with me. Iamthekanadian (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iamthekanadian:I'm not super informed of why it is the way it is, but I've seen people complaining of issues where companies are trying to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool (i.e. kinda like they can edit their result on Google to show information about their business). I'd encourage you to not get down just because some people were a little frustrated or over the top. You also could take a week or so and try editing other things other than about LiveWorkPlay - as that would enable you to get further acquainted with various editing policies/guidelines with no chance people could get mad at you for having a conflict of interest. Just a thought :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny you should say, I actually did a couple of edits for a place I kayak and a place near where I live. I hope that's allowed, because my property values could go up as a result of promoting the neighbourhood. Seriously, I'd have more chance of benefiting that way than writing about where I work :-) Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is getting wild. I am now reportedly getting stalked "off-Wiki" about this. What is it in someone that they see this couple of paragraphs about a charitable organization for people with intellectual disabilities and they invest so hard in attacking a contributor because they work for the organization? This is descending into madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian (talkcontribs) 23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Iamthekanadian I can't do anything about that - he can't post information that may reveal your real life identity because Wikipedia prohibits that, but if he has discovered evidence that you've been untruthful then it's likely that you would be blocked for being deceptive. I'm not going to be involved in this anymore. I've helped you with the draft all I can, and someone else will be able to review it if it's submitted - any dispute about your paid editing status is something better handled privately by people more experienced in that. If there is some connection that you're not being fully truthful about, you may find it beneficial to just come clean with it if you really want to keep working on that draft. If there is private information suggesting you've been less than fully truthful, it's likely that an administrator will block you for being deceptive. That is not something I can do anything about, but if you end up blocked there is a process for you to request reconsideration from another administrator which they would advise you of when you're blocked. Again, there's nothing I can do about that, and at this point I don't really see anything more I can do for you. Best of luck with everything. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries, honestly, I'd prefer to have a Zoom call with everyone and anyone on Wikipedia who has concerns about me, they can meet my entire board, and talk about this like human beings instead of petulant children. This is madness. Thanks, farewell. Iamthekanadian (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021[edit]

WHO Rod.svg
Issue 12—June 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:

Newly recognized content

Featured article Menstrual cycle saved at FAR thanks to the efforts of Graham Beards and others.
Good article Tetrasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by JackFromReedsburg
Good article XYYY syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by MeegsC
Good article CT scan nom. Iflaq, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Good article Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski
Good article Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Aeschylus, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Good article Pentasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Good article Shellfish allergy nom. David notMD, reviewed by CommanderWaterford
Good article Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Premeditated Chaos
Good article Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Amitchell125
Good article nominee Northwestern Memorial Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by Sammi Brie

Nominated for review

Good article nominee Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, under review by Epicgenius
Good article nominee Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus
Peer reviewTetrasomy X and Deep vein thrombosis are both listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Featured article review Upcoming FARs: Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Acute myeloid leukemia, Autism. Contribute to discussions at their talk pages.

News from around the site

Discussions of interest

Project page Discuss this issue

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)