This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noleander (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 12 February 2013 (→Spam removed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:03, 12 February 2013 by Noleander (talk | contribs) (→Spam removed: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Management of hair loss was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | Medicine: Dermatology Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Fashion Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
low level light
Why has this text been removed/changed? It is widely beleived that the Lasercomb is medical quakery. Has the new edit been the result of the page editor finding new evidense/research or is this advertising by the manufacturers. "There is some debate over the FDA's acknowledgment of the Lasercomb. Under the looser standards applicable to medical devices, the HairMax LaserComb was cleared by the FDA as being "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices legally marketed before May 28, 1978. The devices that the lasercomb proved itself equivalent to were a variety of FDA approved non hair growth/laser based devices intended for hair removal and pain relief, and two non FDA approved non laser based/hair growth devices such as the Raydo & Wonder Brush and the Vacuum Cap. These last two devices were sold in the early 1900s and are well established as medical quackery, but they were legal to market at the time which does satisfy the FDA's minimal 510k SE criteria. The 510k number for the Lasercomb is K060305." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.140.77 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed Latest Research
This section seemed questionable to start with. It can be reinstated with a proper citation. However, even if a verifiable source exists, I would probably weaken this section by stating that there is some evidence that apple juice and coffee bean spray helps, but not enough to make it mainstream medical thought. Of course, if it's mainstream already, let's see more sources please. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The latest research on MPB (Male Pattern Baldness) has found that apple juice can help to regrow hair and that hair loss may be caused by a lack of Vitamin D. For women a new spray containing coffee beans has come onto the market that has been shown to stop hair loss "by soothing the scalp, reducing the inflammation that damages hair follicles." SkepticVK (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Recent research / claims
There are a number of lines of research which I think should be reported on this page:
- Tocotrienols. http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Vitamin-E-may-reverse-male-pattern-baldness-Study. An average 42% increase in hair count has been claimed, from an 8 month study involving 28 volunteers.
- Histogen's HSC. http://www.histogen.com/products/hsc.htm
- Follica. http://www.follicabio.com/
- Aderans. http://www.aderansresearch.com/
dead link
DHT: the full story this link is dead --Wiserd 11:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) sperm cell to make ur hair grow thicker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.224.130 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
recommended treatments
Could someone source these recommendation. I've removed them for now. If you have a source, please provide and reinsert. I'm not arguing against them. But they need sources. We have to be careful not to advertise products as much as provide well-sourced information on the ingredients in those products and how they interact. "Everything else" is a very broad claim.
The most recommended treatments, in order of proven effectiveness, greatest to least, is as follows: (1) Propecia (2) Rogainee (3) Tricomin (4) Topical Spiro 5% (5) Revivogen (6) Crinagen (7) Folligen (8) Everything else.
For those in the early stages of hair loss, it is generally recommended to start slow, using propecia alone for at least a year, as it has very good maintenance rates, then adding other products, such as minoxidil, if regrowth is desired.
--Ryan Wise 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
self contradiction
this paragraph contradicts itself: "One explanation for the relationship between lifestyle and male pattern baldness is that lower caloric intake along with more aerobic exercise can decrease insulin levels, resulting in a host of metabolic adjustments which contribute, in the end, to hair loss. Insulin downregulates sex hormone binding globulin. In individuals with moderate levels of SHBG, SHBG would bind to testosterone and helps prevent it's conversion into DHT in the scalp via 5-alpha reductase. But in individuals with lower levels of SHBG, more testosterone is left to float free in the bloodstream and thus be converted into DHT in the scalp. Levels of DHT in the scalp are a key factor in male pattern baldness. This link between diet, insulin, SHBG, androgens and baldness helps to explain recent studies which have shown that early male pattern baldness is an indicator for various metabolic and cardiovascular problems. In other words, diabetes, hairloss and cardiovascualr disease may all be linked to high caloric intake and low exercies." Dreamer.redeemer 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catch. Fixed.
--Ryan Wise 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
“Evidence is mounting that the existence of a high estrogen/androgen ratio - a condition common in older men - is highly correlated with the development of benign prostatic hyperplastic.”
- should it be "prostatic hyperplasia?"
--Ryan Wise 15:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
genetics vs. lifestyle and MPB
I agree that there are numerous indicators that MPB rate of progression has a genetic component due to androgen receptor polymorphisms and distribution, 5-alpha reductase levels in the scalp, total testosterone, mean free testosterone and so forth.
However endurance exercise decreases inflammatory response, baseline total testosterone and baseline free testosterone. It decreases free testosterone both by reducing baseline total testosterone and also by increasing levels of SHBG which further decreases free testosterone. Free testosterone and not total testosterone determines the amount of T converted to DHT. I'll assume I don't need to provide support for the assertion that lowering DHT will help treat MPB? Please note that strength training has the effect of raising, not lowering, free testosterone and relevant studies should specifically indicate aerobic exercise.
Aerobic exercise has been shown to lower free and total androgen levels in animals and humans. --Ryan Wise 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Testosterone and endurance exercise: development of the "exercise-hypogonadal male condition".
a link between c-reactive protein in women, a marker for inflammation, and exercise
Hyperinsulinaemia has been shown to have a direct effect on the liver, suppressing the production of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins 1 and 2 (IGFBP-1, -2) while stimulating the production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)...Men adopting a low-fat diet and daily exercise reduced their levels of serum insulin and IGF-1, while increasing their levels of IGFBP-1 and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)...BMI has strong effects on IGFBPs, C-peptide, and SHBG, but its effects on IGF-I remain unclear. The possible effect of physical activity on IGFBP-1 requires further investigation.
When we placed men from the United States on a low-fat diet and/or exercise program, serum levels of insulin, free testosterone, estradiol and insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 were reduced while sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP)-1 were elevated.
Sex hormone-binding globulin and serum testosterone are inversely associated with C-reactive protein levels in postmenopausal women at high risk for cardiovascular disease. --Ryan Wise 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some speculate the increase in baldness in the population of Japan after World War II demonstrates that hair loss can be influenced by diet and lifestyle. Increased fat or caloric intake, decrease in aerobic exercise and general "westernization" was accompanied by a dramatic increase in incidence of male pattern baldness.
Skeptics of this analysis believe the westernization that led to increased hair loss in Japan may have occurred in the gene pool, noting the higher propensity of hair loss in American soldiers of European descent stationed in and around Japan after the war."
The last parapgraph is unlear. Why is higher propensity of hair loss in Americans stationed in Japan sn evidence against the lifestyle hypothesis? Was their hair loss increased compared to soldiers stationed elsewhere? What does the gene pool have to do with it? Are they referring to the effects of radiation, the mixing with local population?
Saw Palmetto defacement
Someone keeps inserting the claim that saw palmetto has no beneficial effects on male pattern baldness despite the fact that I gave three references to medical publications proving it.
- Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) is an herbal DHT inhibitor often claimed to be cheaper and have fewer side effects than finesteride and dutasteride. Unlike other 5alpha-reductase inhibitors, Saw Palmetto extract works without interfering with the cellular capacity to secrete PSA.
- Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) is an herbal DHT inhibitor often claimed to be cheaper and have fewer side effects than finesteride and dutasteride. Unfortunately despite many claims made by snake oil salesmen, it has no scientific evidence backing it as a hair loss treatment, whatsoever. All studies done on it have established that it is beneficial for prostate conditions, but failed to reduce serum DHT levels to a sufficient extent to affect hair loss in a positive manner.
And saw palmetto is, demonstratably, cheaper than finesteride. This isn't a claim. Do I need to provide references to support this too?!
There's no reason to delete the references that show that saw palmetto inhibits both 5-alpha-reductase isoenzymes except to support a biased POV. If you want to add references to show that saw palmetto cannot possibly prevent MPB please do, but unsupported statements that saw palmetto is sold by 'snake oil salesmen' are POV and deserve to be deleted. --Ryan Wise 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL!
Why are patrick stewart and yul brynner's photos used in the article for baldness TREATMENTS? I hardly think it is fitting to use them for such a page!!! :D Saw Palmetto id no good to my balding pate and ruined my sexual capabilities for the 2 years I tried it. medical intervention by an urologist could only help me reverse the situation. Any body removing article eficacy of Saw palmetto is absolutely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.215.199 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
drugs and placebos
The following doesn't follow logically. Success rates are not the same as side effects.
- Interestingly, placebo treatments in studies often have reasonable success rates, though not as high as the products being tested, and even similar side-effects as the products. For example, in Finasteride (propecia) studies, the percent of patients with any drug-related sexual adverse experience was 3.8% compared with 2.0% in the placebo group.
--Ryan Wise 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
External links
There are quite a few. Any that are particularly important? - brenneman 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
hyperplastic?
Evidence is mounting that the existence of a high estrogen/androgen ratio - a condition common in older men - is highly correlated with the development of benign prostatic hyperplastic.
- shouldn't this be hyperplasia? I'm not certain since this isn't my field. Just a guess.
Revivogen
The outcomes research for this product is flimsy at best..even anecdotal evidence is lacking, so why does Revivogen get a whole section whilst something like Retin-A (which does have properly peer-reviewed outcomes research available) get half a line? Did someone just copy and paste this from hairlosstalk (which promotes Revivogen as it sells it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.206.138 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
- Agreed and removed. I'm amazed no one else caught this blatant breach of Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources earlier. -- Netsnipe 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Restored the section. The section is NPOV and all the links are to scans of a paper from the University of Chicago. Someone else more qualified than I needs to recheck it. -- Netsnipe 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Alternative medicine
In General Concerns:
Proponents of alternative therapies believe that the majority of cases of hair loss that progress despite treatments do so because the people believe no such cure can occur. In this view, this belief, which is prevailing in the modern civilised world and continuously reinforced by medical science, is the main obstacle for effectively finding and applying a cure.
This is only vaguely literate and seems to be a snipe at science rather than anything about the subject? I've removed it completely as a result.
Apparently a new treatment is in the works, "The HairMax LaserComb". It sounds rather melodramatic to me, but here is a link: http://www.playfuls.com/news_004759_FDA_Clears_The_HairMax_LaserComb.html
Diet and lifestyle
I've been searching High and low for any evidence (other than anectotal) to support anything related to diet/exercise and androgenic alopecia and come up empty handed. When it comes to reputable medical texts there are none, however MANY "alternative" publications reference a link between MPB and lifestyle, and searching online, many of these therapies reference this article before other sources (which in turn reference this artice, again). That isnt to say that there is absolutly no connection. However, because no reputable text has published anything, and since there are only 2 FDA Approved treatments (but 3 well known drugs), and most other stuff has nasty side effects (gynecomastia anyone?) or no effect at all (stand on your head!), until a link has been documented by a reputable source, I'd suggest removing it entirely.
However, information pertaining to insulin and SBGH seems to hold water in both sexes, but there are many factors that can dictate higher insulin levels- specifically genetic ones- that diet and exersize cannot control. Maybe somthing to look at? whatever, still remove the "diet and lifestyle info"
Also, and finally, if exercise in relation to MPB is to be mentioned, also mention that to lower baseline testosterone levels you must exercise for an average of 90 minutes each day, aerobically, and become an "endurance trained male" (ref #s 12 & 13) but that it is generally a good thing to do anyhow, and you can sleep like a frikkin baby when you do.
Tiny.ian 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed the references 4 and 5 where the article claims that diet and exercise can significantly reduce DHT, but nowhere in the cites does it actually say anything about DHT levels (i.e. they weren't checked or measured). I think the author is assuming that may or may not be factual based on insulin measurements.
I am not a bot
I tried adding a couple of herbal supplements to the appropriate section but it kept blocking me claiming that I was a bot. I am human, obviously. For some reason, it didn't like the reference to healthology web site. I'm usually pretty good at spotting BS and Healthology seems like a pretty reputable site to me (at least the page I'm referencing seem legit), so I don't know why that site is blocked. In any case, I added the 2 herbal supplements but but now one of them is unsourced. I feel like we're shooting ourselves in the foot because all Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be referenced and it won't let me add the appropriate reference. Anyway, hopefully someone here (an admin perhaps) can fix this. 24.14.76.94 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neither of those references appear to qualify as a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's nice. Someone removed the second reference, so now neither is sourced. Are we trying to make this article better or worse? 24.14.76.94 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I added back the cite. Please, if you think you have a better cite, then just use it. If you can't come up with a better cite, then leave it. Again, we're supposed to be making the article better, not worse. 24.14.76.94 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the cite is added again, the editor adding it will be blocked. I've made it clear that the cite is not a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be sourced. If you don't like the source, find a better one! Be productive, not destructive. 24.14.76.94 23:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, who made you boss of Misplaced Pages? If anything, you should be banned for vandalism. 24.14.76.94 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's the responsibility of the editor who adds material to make sure that material is verifiable and reliably sourced. I just enforce the rules. OhNoitsJamie 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're not "just enforcing the rules". The material did have a cite from a reliable source. I have brought this up to you several times. So far, you have not provided a single reason why you think the source isn't reliable. You simply state "cite is not a reliable source" as if your word were God's. You haven't provided any explanation as to why. Even worse, you threaten people who attempt to edit the article in good faith. I'm sorry but unless you justify your actions, your edits can only be construed as vandalism. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's the responsibility of the editor who adds material to make sure that material is verifiable and reliably sourced. I just enforce the rules. OhNoitsJamie 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the cite is added again, the editor adding it will be blocked. I've made it clear that the cite is not a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I added back the cite. Please, if you think you have a better cite, then just use it. If you can't come up with a better cite, then leave it. Again, we're supposed to be making the article better, not worse. 24.14.76.94 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's nice. Someone removed the second reference, so now neither is sourced. Are we trying to make this article better or worse? 24.14.76.94 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
General preventative warnings
this section is wikihow calibre. i would just erase it, but maybe it could be improved. as it is, it's pretty lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.253.34 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Plant treatments
Androgenic alopecia lists "Lignans from flaxseed, sesamseed, or Norwegian spruce" as a treatment. These are not listed on this page, nor is there a reference. Should this be removed from that article or copied to this one? -- Beland (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I moved the claim here and requested citation. -- Beland (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Conflicting Data Regarding Exercise as Treatment
There is conflicting data/contrary evidence out there according to at least one comprehensive study in middle age to older men that regular aerobic exercise actually slightly increases DHT levels, which contradicts the claim made by one contributor in the Diet and Lifestyle section under Exercise. I plan on making changes to this section if it can't be refuted here in discussion. The study in question can be found here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/569299 B.Soto (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Testosterone Levels
Why do roid users suffer from increased MPD when they are FULL of testosterone? The article claims low test is responsible for hair loss, this seems counter intuitive. Is there any evidence for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.3.77 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a source for the low test=increased mpb claim but the reason people on steroids get hair loss is usually because with supra levels of testosterone a good chunk of that will be converted into DHT which is our prime hair antagonist. SwissTemples (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Good article nomination
This article is well sourced and I would like to see it qualify as a good article. I have already taken the proper steps in nominating it, so wish it luck! — Hucz 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Move to Management of baldness
Title should be singular so moved to this above term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Generic terms
Generics should generally be used as the brand names of different in different countries. The most common brand name may be used once following the generic in quotes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Referencing
To make it to GA this article will need to comply with WP:MEDRS. Most importantly it will need to be based on review articles rather than primary research. If people need help getting review articles drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Approved meds
A number of countries have approval systems. Others should be discussed not just the FDA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Patent abstract for TEMPOL
A reference to a patent abstract is not "spam"" for an agent that is in clinical trials. Jackfirst (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hair transplantation section rewrite required
The Hair transplantation section makes very little sense and needs to be rewritten since it appears to introduce two methods of extraction but then elaborate on only one, FUT, while using the verb extract, which occurs in the name of the other method!
The following hopelessly unhelpful pair of sentences also needs to be dealt with: "When the transaction is completed, the patient should wear a head bandage for the next two days. This will allow the scalp to treat not weakened, and increase the chances of success."
--78.150.118.127 (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Multiple revisions seem like attempt to spam page. Need to slow down revisions.
I am doing a manual revert on chantoke's changes. He is doing too many and in a way that seems designed to prevent reversions by others of us who edit this page. Also without discussion and with no note to the talk page. Also, I will need to check more closely (made diffcult by multiple edits) but some of his changes seem like commercial spam.Belton1 (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I undid your revert. I have been editing the page and rewritten the entire article for the past several weeks. The page has been placed under construction. The entire discussion at Androgenic Alopecia is about my edits. If you have something to address, please bring it to my attention as I am not denying any information without researching it. Your actions (removing my edits without discussion) have been undone and I have brought this to administrator attention. Ramwithaxe 04:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- You discussed none of the revisions on this talk page. Likewise, contrary to your assertions, most of your revisions seem to have been done in the last few days, giving no chance for discussion or revision. Nor did you give any significant information about your revisions in the edit summaries. Also, contrary to your assertions that this was extensively discussed on talk androgenic alopecia, you seem to have only made a few entrys there. In any case, changes need to be discussed on the talk page of the edited article. We editors are not mind readers. Perhaps I am missing something.
- Further, threatening to call in an admin under these circumstances is itself a violation of wikirules. Last I looked, anyway. Belton1 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing several things. There was a notice at the top of the page indicating it was under construction. Administrator action is never a violation of Wikirules as clearly a consensus opinion is needed in this circumstance. You need to look closer. Ramwithaxe 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are there specific sections you are working on? I would be more than happy to work around you. Please make sure you use references. Ramwithaxe 05:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing several things. There was a notice at the top of the page indicating it was under construction. Administrator action is never a violation of Wikirules as clearly a consensus opinion is needed in this circumstance. You need to look closer. Ramwithaxe 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My intent was to slow you down a little and at least get you to do edit summaries. Without these, it is flatly impossible to figure out what you are doing with out considerable effort. Just a courtesy to your fellow editors. Also, just restored section on radiation alopecia. Will do other stuff as indicated. If chemo, etc. goes in this article (which I believe it does) then so does radiation alopecia. Simply-stated-- You can't remove whole sections without some discussion. As for "concensus", I see no discussion of any concensus on this talk page. Belton1 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The consensus refers to having a third opinion. There are two of us, a third person would result in a consensus opinion, unless he disagreed with both of us. Good catch with the radiation alopecia. I have about 12 windows open, 6 of them to journal articles, writing this right now, and that section fell through the cracks, you are correct. I meant to move it, but accidentally deleted it. I wrote that section, so thanks for saving it. I make edits in groups, which I will summarize here in the edit descriptions periodically. I acknowledge I should be more consistent about this. You cannot shoot from the hip on Misplaced Pages. You need to adhere to guidelines. I realize you are new, but going about it the way you did has taken away a large portion of my time from the article. To save us both hassle, tell me where you are editing and don't do things without thinking them through. Ramwithaxe 06:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think back, the reason I lost it is because when I put it on my clipboard to move it, you started posting on my talk page. This isn't a forum, this is an encyclopedia, use the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith rule when in doubt. Please see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes and WP:Discussion:
- "A variety of methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention. Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page."
- You undid my revisions without discussing it on the talk page. Please adhere to encyclopedic etiquette. - Ramwithaxe 06:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to make too much of an issue, this is exactly what I did, with notes both here and to your talk page and in the edit summary. It is likewise a violation of wikipedia etiquette to immediately make threats to complain to an admin, etc., particularly when your activities give the outward appeance of vandalism, as well as break several wikipedia rules over things like no edit summaries. Just change the revert back with an explaination. No big deal.
BTW, I note that you have done this with other pages and that I am not the first to object to it. By this time, I would expect you to know better.
You must understand that this is a long-term article that has a lot of input from numerous editors and should not be taken over like this without any edit summaries or giving other editors the chance for feedback. BTW, I am surprised that nobody else has objected, so far. Many editors take a wikibreak for the holidays. Doubtless others will give their input with time. Unfortunately, you have not made this easy. I do notice that an admin has suggested the use of edit summaries.
Also, properly, numerous incremental edits like this should be done in the sandbox before posting. That is what it is for. Otherwise, the previous edits and their editors get completely lost. Just saying. Belton1 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I will be more conscientious about edit summaries and making interval edits in the sandbox. Best, Ramwithaxe 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Construction notice
This article will be under construction till 1/7/12 as it needs a complete rewrite. This construction began on 12/20/2012. Edits will be summarized on the talkpage. If any feedback, please leave it here. As is normal Misplaced Pages policy, do not undo another users contributions without discussing it on the talk page first. Please feel free to make your own edits. The frequent updates can be put on hold, and all users contributions can be considered. Thanks! Please comment here or on my talk page if feedback. Ramwithaxe 05:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article is getting quite long, with the sections on 'experimental medical' and 'supplement' with the most text. I have been extremely aggressive in reducing unneeded wording, but there will likely need to be separate articles to address those topics with the amount of text in this one reduced. First, a separate "Management of androgenic alopecia" article could be created, but if that is too long, then separate Herbal management and Experimental medical management of androgenic alopecia could be made. Does this seem reasonable? Ramwithaxe 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Link removal
While editing hair transplantation, two links were listed as blacklisted by Misplaced Pages, and have been replaced with more objective and up to date Pubmed citations:
<ref></ref> <ref>{{cite news|url=http://healthyhairhighlights.com/new_approach_to_hair_transplant.html|title=Hair transplantation new and painless approach with tiny strips|publisher=Healthy Hair Highlights News|date=July 10, 2011 | accessdate=September 13, 2011}}</ref> Ramwithaxe 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Preserving text in face of hundreds of edits by single editor
Due to hundreds of revisiona by a single editor in last couple of weeks, article is in danger of going beyond 500 edit limit for listing text. So have done manual reversion back to Dec. 20, 2012 to keep former text on edit list. Then I then reverted my revert. Belton1 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I also direct all editors attention to the wikipedia policy on ownership of articles Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Belton1 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I concur that what user:Chantoke has done is very much contrary to all the wikirules (as I understand them anyway). Perhaps he simply does not understand the proper use of edit summaries and the sand box. But he should not be so defensive. Cultural issue ? Anyway, I will go thru and make any chages, reverts, etc. as time allows. The former page could have used some polishing, but was not all that bad. Perhaps the thing to do is to restore it and allow chantoke to make his chages, summarizing as he goes along.Drjames1 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- James, Belton started undoing my edits without any discussion on the talk page. If you revert back to the prior article, I will restore it to the current one with a large edit summary, but I can do that now without the unneeded undo and revert. The volume of the edits was the reason edit summaries were absent. Ramwithaxe (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, what 500 edit limit are you referring to? That is a non existent rule. Can either of you identify any problem with the current content, other than absent edit summaries? If not, then when my changes are undone, I will simply re-enter all of my work with an edit summary, as per Misplaced Pages policy. This is ridiculous. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Ramwithaxe (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, presumably Belton1 is referring to the fact that only the last 500 edits can be brought up by a simple click. Edits beyond this number must be accessed manually, which many editors (most of whom actually have lives) don't know how to or don't care to do.
- Also, what 500 edit limit are you referring to? That is a non existent rule. Can either of you identify any problem with the current content, other than absent edit summaries? If not, then when my changes are undone, I will simply re-enter all of my work with an edit summary, as per Misplaced Pages policy. This is ridiculous. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Ramwithaxe (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- James, Belton started undoing my edits without any discussion on the talk page. If you revert back to the prior article, I will restore it to the current one with a large edit summary, but I can do that now without the unneeded undo and revert. The volume of the edits was the reason edit summaries were absent. Ramwithaxe (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I concur that what user:Chantoke has done is very much contrary to all the wikirules (as I understand them anyway). Perhaps he simply does not understand the proper use of edit summaries and the sand box. But he should not be so defensive. Cultural issue ? Anyway, I will go thru and make any chages, reverts, etc. as time allows. The former page could have used some polishing, but was not all that bad. Perhaps the thing to do is to restore it and allow chantoke to make his chages, summarizing as he goes along.Drjames1 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- So a massive number of edits will push previous edits and editors over a virtual "event horizon" and make them disappear. Which is why everyone is bothered about your potentially doing this, as you have already done on, IIRC, androgenic alopecia, doubtless innocently. Sometimes, this is used to hide mischief.
- Also, I just noticed the fuss you are making over on Peter Proctor. At the moment, not my concern, but I am getting out the popcorn and lining up for a front row seat. Drjames1 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry I didn't realize people didn't look past 500. It was not my intention to mask prior edits, I was simply being careless, and it will not happen again. Best, Ramwithaxe talk 13:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Spam removed
I removed promotional material related to Proctor & his hair loss products, per WP:SPAM. Before considering re-adding the material, please produce independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the product, in relation to "management of baldness", in a significant way. Supplying primary sources written by Proctor or producers of his products is not sufficient. --Noleander (talk)
Categories:- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- Start-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- Start-Class dermatology articles
- Unknown-importance dermatology articles
- Dermatology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Start-Class fashion articles
- Mid-importance fashion articles