Talk:Cholinergic urticaria

Photo in article infobox
Isn't that a photo of Miliaria in the infobox and not Cholinergic urticaria? Do a Google image search. Cholinergic urticaria is larger and more typically hive like. 5Q5 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Curated talk
[''5Q5 (in 2013) and PKeMcG (in 2014) made one talk contrib each (now appearing, respectively,
 * in the top-level talk section titled "Photo in article infobox" and
 * in the now-two-levels-down talk section titled "Re: Photo in article infobox").

I've undertaken to curate those two edits, including preserving the text of both contribs (tho i repaired the unacceptable mis-formatting of the "..." markup.) For those who might choose to verify them against the edit history, i've reformatting those prior discussion-contribs to a smaller font, to make them distract less from the (hopefully less confusing) re-formatted presentation of the same text. --Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)'']

Re: Photo in article infobox
[The user:PKeMcG copied material by the previous talk contributor, and to duplicate it (without explicit attribution) within their own signed talk contribution:] --Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)  "'Isn't that a photo of Miliaria in the infobox and not Cholinergic urticaria?'" No. "'Do a Google image search. Cholinergic urticaria is larger and more typically hive like.'" I would not recommend "Google image search" in place of a professional medical opinion. PKeMcG (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)  & broken formatting repaired by Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another try, at what the prior tk-contr'rs two contribs should have dealt with
''I sympathize with both the '13, and the '14, contributors of the preceding two sections' substantive content, but my experience suggests that any colleagues viewing this talk page have been
 * ''confused, annoyed, and inclined to wish a plague on the whole discussion,

''to the detriment of the editorial process. Believing colleagues will otherwise continue such neglect (in the absence of some facilitation) i have, below, (first) reconfigured the prior dialogue into what i hope will be a more familiar and reader-friendly form (and i shall do more before the end of this sub-section):--Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC) ''
 * 5Q5 in quick succession asked a question and made an assertion. Specifically:
 * The question asked in relevant part "Isn't that a photo of Miliaria in the infobox ...?"
 * The assertion suggested, implicitly, that a search for on-line images would serve as evidence of mistaken identification of the lesions displayed.
 * These elicited from PKeMcG, respectively
 * a direct (but inadequate) "No.", and
 * a non-responsive comment, moving on to matters outside the scope of WP's purposes.
 * PKeMcG arguably simply lost focus at that point: A colleague more committed to doing WP's work, or contributing on a more productive day, would have stuck to (or at least gotten around to) the task of optimizing the article content. It's unclear whether the response i found instead was about
 * imagining that we can improve WP by omitting information that might be used by some fool whose real need is for a doctor,
 * shaming the colleague who dared to question an image that P is invested in having displayed, or
 * something else.

IMO, the assessment and clarification, that this talk edit of mine provides, may facilitate efforts to improve the article. --Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversion in section "Symptoms"
In the accompanying article's section, i've reverted both of the WP edits, made to date, by a presumably well-intentioned colleague who is nevertheless probably mistaken about what the reasonably-often-encountered etiologies are. (While i lack access to the two "cite pmid" refs provided, and have thus not confirmed that they fail to support the change, no new ref has been supplied, and the colleague has at best contradicted the prior contributor's representation as to the two ref's pertinent content (and later contradicted themself) without comment; at worst, they may not have bothered to consult those refs, and thus effectively attributed, to the ref, statements of supposed fact which do not exist in them.)  We need discussion by at least the contributor whose version of the sentence was changed, and preferably by both, of what's gone on there. --Jerzy•t 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

==Discussion cont...= The loaded question in ‘13 and my subsequent comment in ‘14 is petty, likely born out of sheer frustration at the time. Although not constructive neither is having a conversation within the current time frame of these posts. If anyone wishes to amend current photo or text please proceed without need for discussion given the information provided is objective and properly referenced.

In regards to “Reversion in section ‘Symptoms’” I have reviewed the proposed additions and have noted no reference to the terms “excitement”, “shock”, “laughter”, or “anxiety” respectively in the cited articles and agree with the decision to reverse the revision.PKeMcG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)