Talk:Necrosis

message: I think that what should be added is a section here that talks about physiologic necrosis or programmed necrosis, which actually does appear in in the literature. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20390367
Does anyone have any remarks about that? IsaacD (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  and  and many other sources from 2010 or so, necrosis (or necroptosis) is a Programmed cell death. נטע (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Physiologic Necrosis

message: I'm confused by the bit on mercury.  Is there a reason why it deserves special mention, rather than just being an example of a poison?Lstearns90 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercury?

message: They're not the same thing - oncosis is the cell death, and necrosis occurs after. Maybe oncosis should be made and redirect here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.161.179 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oncosis vs. necrosis?

message: Hm.  The parenthetical (instead of planned suicide) was deleted, but I think it might actually have belonged there. Anyone with the medical / biological knowledge, help? -- April
----
I believe that necrosis refers to death of some tissue, and not the whole organism, but i'm not sure. If i'm right, the planned suicide thing doesn't
make sense, so I erased, till someone who could know comes along. AN
----
The article states there are FOUR types of necrosis, and then lists FIVE... maybe there is something to fix :-) --Kormoran 20:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hm

message: It is the best addon for warlocks available.
someone has messed with the necrosis page and edited an insult into the webpage (it said YOU SUCKZORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).  I ask the wikipedia management to restrict editing of the necrosis webpage as soon as possible.  thanks.66.66.190.54 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of Warcraft Addon for Warlocks 

message: Sac spiders are practically global and are not located in the US and Australia alone.  Is it that the American and Australian varieties are the only ones thought to cause necrosis?  If sac spiders are generally suspected of this, the article is misleading in that regard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.99.139 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sac Spider 

message: I don't think Wikipedia should include images that may cause some people to vomit.--ILoveSky (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  disturbing image (second roudnel) 

message: According to Hoax-Slayer.Com Article Re: Brown Recluse Spider Bites, an entomologist from UC writes:
:Despite the fact that lots of people believe that brown recluses are deadly, there are only about 8 reported deaths from possible brown recluse bites in the medical literature, Philip Anderson states that there is still not one VERIFIED death from a brown recluse bite and none of the alleged fatal cases are convincing.
Given that  - it would make more sense to change the images description to read, "An Example of Necrosis" and leave it at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesurbius (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That only points out fatality of those bites. It doesn't say anything about necrosis or other minor effects. The person whose leg that is a picture of is still alive and he confirmed that it was a brown recluse bite, so it should be left. 198.174.37.44 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption Under Picture may be incorrect 

message: This article was psuedo-linked to in the alternate text of XKCD. My recommendation is that it should be protected to prevent vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.189.201 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not pre-emptive (WP:NO-PREEMPT).  At the risk of speaking too soon, the xkcd reference doesn't seem to have generated any vandalism (yet) and the comic has been live for (probably) getting on for 24h now.  The page has quite a few watchers.  If there's sustained vandalism it's possible to apply for semi-protection.  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you'll see any vandalism.  The XKCD ref didn't encourage such, and his audience isn't exactly the Colbert Nation 97.114.186.113 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that, xkcd is not 4chan. It is a nerdy comic about math, physic and sometimes love, not necessarily the fields of interest of a troll/vandal. --217.238.172.80 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't stopped articles from being vandalized by mere mention on XKCD anyway. It's not as bad as the Colbert Nation, but it's close. Putnam (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  HJ Mitchell took care of it; I decided not to earlier, but I guess no big deal. That comic is no longer on top, so one day should more than cover it. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, how on earth is that semi-protect justified?  We have one single instance of vandalism here since the XKCD comic.  One.  How is that "heavy and continued"?  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: dunno what the exact criteria are, but it would seem to be "heavy and continued" across the breadth of articles xkcd mentions.24.13.125.86 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It still feels like a disproportionate response to a problem that wasn't really there, to me.  Never mind.  It was done in good faith and the semi-protect has expired now.  Time to draw a line and move on, I think.  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend protection 

message: The webcomic xkcd has referenced this page. Should it be linked in an "In Popular Culture" or something section? 
Comic can be found here, in the alt-text: http://xkcd.com/825/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.20.53 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to say no.  The reference was to the wikipedia page, not to necrosis itself.  I wonder if there's a tag for the talk page though, something like "this page was referenced by the following TV episode, web comic, film, whatever"?  I know we have one for "this page was used as a source for a news agency".  Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[xkcd]] Reference?

message: Will a real editor please stand up?
"Spider bites are cited as causing necrosis in some areas, but such claims are widely disputed. In the US, only brown recluse spiders (genus Loxosceles) have been proven to consistently cause necrosis.[1] ...
Claims of necrosis caused by other spiders' bites are common, but supporting evidence is lacking... A few spiders commonly suspected (but not conclusively proven) of having necrotic venom include:
Hobo spider in Northwestern United States[4] 
Recluse spider"
Which one is it?  Are recluse spiders "proven to consistently cause necrosis" or "suspected (but not conclusively proven) of having necrotic venom"?
The link "Recluse spider" above, when followed, actually contradicts the very sentence in which it is referenced!  How could anyone seriously "cite" wikipedia?
146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, the recluse spiders are the only genus definitely proven to cause necrotic bites in humans. The claims that hobo spiders and yellow sac spiders cause necrotic bites is controversial because there is far less clinical evidence to support these claims. (However, these spiders may cause necrotic bites in domestic pets, such as rabbits.) The evidence that they cause necrosis in humans is mostly circumstantial, and there needs to be more research to conclusively prove or disprove these claims. --24.187.233.18 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I took a cursory glance at the talk page, but I didn't see any large controversy, although I may have missed it. Anyway, it wouldn't matter. The question of whether L. reclusa is capable of delivering a necrotic bite isn't just a matter of opinion, but appears to be fairly well established in the medical literature. Here is an article that may interest you and other editors. Regards --24.187.233.18 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arachnogenic Necrosis section, non-sequitur 

message: As has been pointed out, necrosis properly refers to the tissue changes that occur after cell death. The introduction to this article promotes the common but incorrect belief that necrosis refers to cell death itself or the changes that precede cell death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.76.169 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental cell death vs Necrosis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Necrosis. 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/20080705205656/http://www.uhms.org/ResourceLibrary/Indications/NecrotizingSoftTissueInfections/tabid/279/Default.aspx to http://www.uhms.org/ResourceLibrary/Indications/NecrotizingSoftTissueInfections/tabid/279/Default.aspx
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) 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ekrodge (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Cell Biology Honors