Talk:Adiposis dolorosa

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. Calmer Waters 03:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Endocrine Involvement

Endocrine involvement was doubted as early as in 1933 and further ruled out in 1952. Present-day methods have not revealed any endocrine abnormalities. An endocrine dysfunction as the etiology of Dercum’s disease has little support in the modern literature. Source: http://www.ojrd.com/content/pdf/1750-1172-7-23.pdf 74.132.147.247 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to bump this as this page has been added to endocrinology again Catmattack (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adiposis dolorosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225062211/http://dercumsfoundation.org/ to http://www.dercumsfoundation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Article gutted, why?

This page claims the term for this disease is outdated, citing an a scientific article that does not claim the term is outdated, and uses the term over 20 times for the disease. However, let’s say I misread the cited article and the term is outdated—shouldn’t this page redirect instead of saying that the term is outdated? Most of these edits were done by RiteCode, who has an interesting edit history where they have removed sections of articles pointing out controversy and even replacing sections pointing out controversy with the actual controversial statement being discussed (see edit on 173 bytes on May 27, 2020 on Lipedema page). I want these edits reviewed, please! Catmattack (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)