User talk:Irruptive Creditor

Hello, Irruptive Creditor. Thank you for your work on

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you edited certain sections in the propylhexedrine article to describe recreational use as simply "not using for intended purposes" personally I don't really see any reason to get rid of the term "recreational use", especially considering there is an entire section named recreational use. Is there any reason for changing this? Were you also planning on changing the section name to reflect the changes you made? Frost.xyz | (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what they are. I needed a way to clarify the differences in outcomes between therapeutic use and recreational use. For example, it needs to be clear that hospitalization or death are unlikely results of therapeutic use:

"The occurrence of these adverse effects is uncommon as propylhexedrine is generally recognized as safe and effective.[11] However, the use of propylhexedrine products in manners not intended by their labeling can result in severe adverse effects not typically encountered in therapeutic settings.[12][13][14] The outcomes of improperly using propylhexedrine products can include hospitalization, disability, or even death.[11]".

In this instance, it needs to be clear that therapeutic use is unlikely to cause serious adverse events. Instead, therapeutic use is only likely to cause the following:

"The most common adverse effects warned about for propylhexedrine inhalers are temporary discomfort (e.g., stinging or burning sensations) or worsened nasal congestion".

Also, the wording of 'manner inconsistent with its labeling' came before I replaced most instances with the term 'recreational use'. It also needs to be stated that propylhexedrine products such as inhalers, anorectics, and anticonvulsants are neither designed nor intended for recreational use and that both regulators and manufacturers have strongly advised against such actions. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a matter of politics or my personal views on recreational (or medical) use of psychoactive agents. I did this to avoid confusing consumers (of propylhexedrine products) who may otherwise not understand that recreational use of propylhexedrine products is different in terms of adverse events, dose, and means of administration. Without this, one ends up with silly claims like these on product reviews (that could end with people needlessly avoiding an effective medicine or seeking unneeded medical attention based on false beliefs of possible harms from said medicine). For example, this anecdote online falsely claims that propylhexedrine inhalant (Benzedrex) is dangerous for people with hypertension (it is not): "After using [propylhexedrine], my normal blood pressure elevated enough to put me in the ER. A basic online search confirmed it's dangerous". This is false, propylhexedrine inhalant (Benzedrex) is not unsafe for people with hypertension and is not required to carry any warning about hypertension when used therapeutically. The same is not true of recreational use according to FDA: "…[Signs of overdose include r]apid heart rate, agitation, high blood pressure, chest pain, tremor, hallucinations, delusions, confusion, nausea, and vomiting." Therapeutic use is safe for persons with hypertension; recreational use is not. I needed to make things such as this clear. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to make any assumptions on your personal views of propylhexedrine use lol i guess i just misinterpreted what u wrote. Thanks for clearing it up tho, appreciate the changes u made !! Frost.xyz | (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Kimen8 (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not using edit summaries. Did you not see this message above? Kimen8 (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I don't really care too much. No policy currently requires I always use edit summaries. Furthermore, the mere prompting of users (not requiring) to use edit summaries is an oft proposed and then rejected suggestion for Wikipedia. Simply put, until I'm required to always use edit summaries, I won't always. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely an old habit as I usually edit list articles by adding citations (e.g., the various lists on U.S. controlled substances). There's 163 substances in schedules 2 through 5 on under the CSA. If all I'm doing is adding one citation (that anyone can easily spot), I don't think it warrants an edit summary. Sure it may be considered by some as bad etiquette, but eh whatever. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the template "warning" message is because it says what I want to say better than I could have said it.

The most important part to me is This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work.. When I am looking at a recent changes feed (including my watchlist), and I see changes with no edit summary, I have literally zero idea what they may contain. It saves me (and every other editor doing the same thing) having to look at the content of edits if I can see the edit summaries go by. Even if I recognize the editor's name and generally judge their edits to be "good" edits, it doesn't mean I don't want to know what is being changed in an article I have particular interest in. And just seeing that the change sizes are small does not mean I am not going to want to look in to them: some people will go through and remove some words or clauses they don't consider necessary, or swap in "synonyms", while failing to notice that by changing a single word or removing a clause, or using a word that is not a true/perfect synonym, they are changing the meaning of the text (sometimes significantly).

I understand not writing a paragraph edit summary for fixing 3 characters, or adding one citation, and that's not what I'm asking. There are canned edit summaries available, or even

abbreviations

for common changes that are short and simple (e.g., "ce", "ref").

My stance is that your spending a second or two max per edit of providing an edit summary saves a lot more "total man time" if every single editor who sees your edit (and is curious about it) has to spend (generally more than) one or two seconds looking at a diff. I may seem very caught up with this issue, but it is part of my larger interest in the project as a whole: it is, fundamentally, a cooperative project, and just as in a workplace where it is in everyone's best interests to remove points of friction, and remove duplication of effort, so it is here.

Kimen8 (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've been editing some health-related articles recently. A bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions about good sources for medical content and appropriate writing style. Please consider putting the page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Irruptive Creditor - thanks for your edits on Supreme Court of the United States and welcome to Wikipedia!

Wanted to make a friendly ask to only check the 'minor edits' box when they are edits that nobody will dispute (I got this request when I started)

cheers Superb Owl (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've noticed that you've done a few good article reviews, but they don't seem to have thoroughly engaged with the article or the nominator. If I can make a suggestion, you might want to look at examples of good article reviews written by others and maybe go through the process as a nominator before doing reviews, so that way you know what's expected. It's always nice to see someone willing to help out, and I hope to see more of you at GAN! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is they? Can you please expand upon what you mean by the following: "...but they don't seem to have thoroughly engaged with the article or the nominator." The meaning of your message comes off as vague. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the reviews you did at

WP:GAFAIL. The standards you used for William Burnham Woods seem to be significantly beyond what reviewers are supposed to check for, which are explained at the WP:Good article criteria. I also don't see any indication that you looked at the text of the sources; if you haven't, then you have no way of knowing whether there's original research or plagiarism. A lot of your comments at Killing of Shani Louk are just describing what you see, such as what the article is about and what languages the sources are in, instead of comparing the article to the GA criteria and listing points where it might not meet them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps the W. Burham Woods review was a bit spurious, and I could of easily whittled my commentary down to a simple 'lacks depth' comment. However, that was an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Very little discussion of even so much as judicial philosophy even featured on that article.

However, the Killing of Shani Louk was fairly straightforward. Someone was alive, and now they're dead. The broader context is discussed on the main article regarding the massacre. About my only concerns were with the Ynet citation and like sources, but broadly it is a good article. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you started Modafinil GA review at Talk:Modafinil/GA3 on 30 March 2024, that is 16 days ago, but since then I didn't hear anything from you, there is no review result, despite that the GA review is a lightweight process expected to complete in 7 days at most. Could you please complete the review ASAP? Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this and have a lot of shit going right now, if there is a way to dismiss me from that review, I’m fine with being booted. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to get you back, hope you are well. We returned the nominated article to the backlog a few days ago. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you resolve your issues and have sufficient time to finish a GA review in due time, please consider getting back to reviewing the GA nominated articles, including Modafinil if it will still be in the backlog by that time. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply