":::You just don't give up do you? Why don't you try doing something positive, ""stats section is unencyclopedic"". It's getting really stale.  a couple of comments here and there, from the peanut gallery, doesn't dictate policy. How statisistics on eating disorders on an article on eating disorders  is ""uncyclopedic"", is beyond me. This is being positive , contributing images and information that might actually be interesting or useful, at least I make the effort. As I understand personal attacks are a no no, but criticising the content is not, criticising the content is a bit hard to do in some cases, because there is little to no content to criticise. It also seems that does who criticise the most contribute the least. Like this,, oops there is nothing there. Just to reiterate a fact, there was no interest displayed by you in this article at all, despite the fact that you have been on Wikipedia for years, now it seems to be a pressing concern.

"