Talk:Blackhead

I

When using any medication for blackheads, acne, etc it is very important the you or anyone else does not mash, scratch or anything else to remove them. It may cause anger outrages or even severe pains that might cause the victim to hurt you...

Major Changes

Person above - next time provide a source. I could say that my dermatologist said pigs flying were the cause of acne, but that doesn't mean that it should be added. But that being said, I have removed the treatment/causes sections and added sources to the article. This page says blackheads are a type of acne ... (forgot the type). That type of acne is linked (there is another wp article on it). In it there was a fully cited section on treatment and causes (this I noted), so therefore there is no need to have a treatment/causes section here (especially since it wasn't cited at all) - I see that as repetitive. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the acne vulgaris page states any remedies which are specific for blackheads. A highlight on this page ought to be appropriate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.39.223 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... 155.93.194.214 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhead gun?

Could someone explain what a blackhead gun is? Presumably, it gets rid of blackheads.

Also, could someone post a picture of a blackhead? I'm having no luck finding pictures online.

Goddesses bless. --Dans1120 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe for UK users you can find out about the blackhead gun at I have this link http://www.blackhead-gun.co.uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.112.167 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood

Ew, that person in the picture has a bloody nose ;_; —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiringRange (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. It's distracting. New photo please. 74.68.114.168 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That photo makes me physically ill.

by Wild Mountain Thyme (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the picture's absolutely disgusting, and the bloody nose adds nothing to the article. It was probably put up as a sick joke. I've removed it. Palefire (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new picture of my own creation. No blood. Enjoy. Also, if anyone wants to expand the article, the old image of a pore cleansing strip can be found here. −Elecbullet (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackheads "in situ"

None the less, a picture of a nose with ordinary blackheads (almost all white people in cold climates have them to some extent; only real way to get rid of them is a hot climate where extra sweat/sebum flow keeps pores unclogged - though saunas can help) would be informative - their contents on a pore strip might as well be sand grains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.14.247 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my image removed?

An IP user removed [1] my contribution to the article, an image of blackheads on my nose. Why is that? He gave no reason for the removal− just undid my edit.

I think that a picture of blackheads on an actual nose is more relevant than blackheads removed from skin (as mesmerizing as that image may be)... in the same way, on the page Fingernail you would show a picture of fingernails on a finger... not after they've been clipped off.

The whole reason that blackhead removal picture was there is because there WAS a picture of blackheads on a nose, but it was bloody which disgusted people. Then there was no decent image of blackheads on a nose... so they used the removed blackheads picture. My image is not "disgusting" like the old image.

If you're going to Undo an edit, give a reason (unless the edit is vandalistic, that is self-explanatory). I will return my image. Elecbullet (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the old image, the one that was there before I gave my image.

Admittedly, that last image (UsedPoreStrip.JPG) is absolutely vile. Scientific and all that jazz, but still, when you realize what the strip is covered in, still absolutely vile.

For some reason I wasn't really bothered by the picture of the guy's bloody nose. The only reason as to why you can even see it at all is because you're essentially looking up his nose.

Secondly, is that even the 'average' result for a pore strip? Either way, it should be marked as an expected/unusual result, depending on whatever it happens to be; I feel it could be misleading (and/or depressing) otherwise. 76.15.43.180 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, to be honest I find it sort of fascinating. Probably for the same reason I have trichotillomania. Weird.

Remember though that my image was the SECOND one, the one on the RIGHT (above your message). Since the user who was removing my image was an IP user whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been reverting my edits, and has not responded to my messages on his talk page, I have since replaced my image in the article and moved his to a new section in the article.

−Elecbullet (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think vileness is a good metric to regulate the contents of this page by. It's the page on blackheads, for gods' sake. Decomposing face-slime was never the sort of thing to write sonnets about. This page is *supposed* to be disgusting, no more than it needs to be, but enough to discuss the topic accurately. Horrible pictures are fine, IMO, if they accurately depict the horror that is facial acne.

94.197.127.215 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to technical term comedone

This article should be moved to the technical term and than discuss both whiteheads and blackheads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, although singular comedo might be better with comedones as a redirect. Isheden (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

blackheads-treatments deleted

Hi

I am new on Wiki. I added substantial information on Blackhead treatments but it is deleted. I am unable to follow the reason for the same. Thanks. --Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was given in the edit summary. The material was mostly redundant with material in Acne Vulgaris, the article where it belongs. Furthermore, it was unsourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks for response. You gave me two reasons for deleting the content.

1. "The material was mostly redundant with material in Acne Vulgaris, the article where it belongs."

Don't you think, if this is a case, putting up an entire new article on blackheads is redundant? why do you need to have a separate section on types of acne when you want all together under one head. The info provided was strictly on the topic.

2."Furthermore, it was un-sourced."

Source acnetalks.com is rejected, I had to go without it. I added complete information on wiki. I could have written in length about the topic but I listed some facts, pure info. These facts can be checked on the sources already on the wiki blackhead page for the content accuracy. acnetalks.com is a major site on the subject and occupied top slot for blackheads for more than few years in the past. If it is desired that editors put info from some fairly known names only, so can be the case. It is easy to compile info from 2-3 sources.

Here in this case, it seems the editor OhNoitsJamie is unable to get rid of his COI while judging the content. Source or No Source, info can not be deleted, just because it belongs to someone you do not approve of or have COI with.

I request- the blackheads page be made part of acne vulgaris page and it should not exist separately as it doesn't require any kind of treatment or removal sections as per OhNoitsJamie.

--Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you nailed this issue on the head. I have a COI with blackheads. I own 52% of the controlling shares in Amalgamated Blackheads and Lesions, Inc. I'm not going even going to address your other request because it's a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" argument. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lols. Well, you have exactly said it! Without being crappy about "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" argument for the site acnetalks.com (which has good apples in its basket) I would like to know about the content feedback. If you have any thing to add on the content requirements for this particular blackheads article, you may share that. Thanks. --Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes what a blackhead is. There is another article describing what a whitehead is (Pimple). Both are symptoms/manifestations of Acne Vulgaris, which is where any content on treatment belongs. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Point Noted. Thanks for clarification. --Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

Not sure "modified" is the best word for the sebum here. "Modified" implies a person acted on it deliberately, or that, if it was nature, then a specific single event happened.

"Decomposed" or "oxidised" might be better, but I don't understand the process well enough to pick a specific word. Which is why I'm not changing it myself. But for the next passing dermatologist...

94.197.127.215 (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 years later

11 years later... 155.93.194.214 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

I