Talk:Lichen sclerosus

message: Isn't it trivial that a disease that in men usually affects the foreskin is rare in circumcised men, who don't have one? Readers should think carefully what it means to (more or less) promote removal of everything that can become affected by a disease. There is no mentioning of a chirurgical treatment for women. Also the usual relation to penile cancer is largely exaggerated; looking around on the Internet with Google it seems that there are hardly reliable data available for this claim. To me this seems an unnecessary pro-circ bias. What is my bias? Well, I had LS, was circumcised and do not recommend it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.152.230.183  (talk • contribs) .
:That is a good point. For Men, Lichen sclerosus is a disease that primarily the foreskin, and therefore circumcision will reduce its incidence dramatically. In the same way we could reduce appendicitis by giving everyone a appendectomy. --Dumbo1 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't

message: "the disease may take the form of whitish thickening of the foreskin which cannot be retracted easily." - Does this mean it causes the f-skin not to retract easily, or is caused by a foreskin not retracting easily? --DanielCD 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: Article has very good content but does not fit the format of a medical article. --Lendorien 13:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information at WP:MEDMOS might be helpful in cleaning up this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: External links to patient support groups (especially online chat boards), blogs, and fundraising groups normally not accepted on Wikipedia.  Also, to prevent a proliferation of links, it's good to avoid more than one link to any website.  Please read the external links policy and the specific rules for medical articles before adding more external links.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Was there any research done to see if LS were a fungal condition? 84.75.134.177 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fungal? 

message: I see that this has a rather official-sounding reference, but wonder if anyone can verify that this is in correct an "incorrect" term for LS?  I have been using the longer name for some years now.  As far as I understood it, this is just an old-fashioned name for LS but not necessarily incorrect.  Am I wrong?
75.155.244.206 (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Often termed, incorrectly, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lichen sclerosus. 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/20110518141903/http://www.bettermedicine.com/article/lichen-sclerosus to http://www.bettermedicine.com/article/lichen-sclerosus
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210529/http://dermis.multimedica.de/dermisroot/de/34088/diagnose.htm to http://dermis.multimedica.de/dermisroot/de/34088/diagnose.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's almost obvious that the title reflects a confusing comparison based on a presumable resemblance in appearance or (tactile) texture. Surely a reliable source is available to clarify what we've left unsaid (and will otherwise continue to sow uncertainty.--Jerzy•t 01:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lichen" as simile(?)