Jump to content

Talk:Melanocytic nevus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"black" and "brown" people

[edit]

although there are many lines throughout the article stating and suggesting that blacks do not have moles, they do. in many cases the moles are of a different type or less conspicuous since they are similar in color to the surrounding skin.

http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/moles.html

somebody should fix those errors!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Existserve332 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Creams

[edit]

Remove moles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man200000 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thickness

[edit]

What of the thickness of a mole? What is a '3-dimensional' mole made of?, surely melanin isn't making the lump. -Unknown

Agreed. The description is inaccurate. Hopefully someone will come along who can correct it. dbenbenn | talk 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I changed the article to reflect the fact that moles are made of melanocytes, not melanin. I also expanded slightly with description as either neoplasm or hamartoma. Osmodiar 09:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirected from article content

[edit]

What elements/genes etc. contribute to a greater abundance of moles in a person than another? What element(s) would balance the level of melanin in order for the mole to be invisible?

This can't be right

[edit]

Picking== Does picking a mole cause cancer? Sounds like an old wive's tale to me but I was just wondering if anyone could shed any light on the matter. Thunder Cat

I don't know any scientific data on the subject, but I accidentally scratched off a mole when I was a kid, and it grew back more than twice as large and more raised from my skin than the first. I would think that it wouldn't cause cancer, but might make the mole more susceptible to damage from the sun that could lead to melanoma. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that the improper removal of a malignant mole can cause the cancer to metastasize. Since this article features a discussion of mole removal, it seems to me that, if true, this warning should be added. I am not qualified to draft it, however. -Unknown

Removal

[edit]

Can small ones which are level with the skin be removed? -Unknown

dont know but i heard if you start picking it gets bigger and bigger. -Unknown
unless you cut it off with a knife!! -Unknown
I'd think you'd need to have it done surgically. -Tyciol
I have a mole and yes, it gets bigger and bigger once you start picking it. I become obcessed with it some years ago because hairs were growing on it, and from that moment on, the mole's growth increased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.191.105 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of moles

[edit]

The ABCDE rule of moles would be a good addition. It should probably have its own page, though an ABCDE article does already exist.

Also, does anyone know of any treatments whatsoever for moles? I heard iodine-painting works on blemishes, but I suppose not on moles. -GrimRC 86.4.58.252 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic connection?

[edit]

An Afghan friend of mine, aged in his late teens when he left Afghanistan and came here to Australia, asked me with some shock what those things were on Australians' skin, ie moles. He said he had never seen such a thing till he came to Australia. Of course, he would have certainly seen more Aussies with fewer clothes on even than in pre-Sovietised Afghanistan, but it still made me wonder if ethnicity has anything to do with moles. Alpheus 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moles and metabolism

[edit]

Does anyone have idea if the needs and byproducts of cells in a mole mass differ from other skin? I read somewhere (though not a science) that they expel more toxins or something like that. -Tyciol

Moles and superstition

[edit]

In some of the new age circles, there's this idea circulating that you can draw some sort of symbol on a mole with a ball-point pen and it removes it because moles are caused by astral lesions or something. Does anyone think that would be humorous to add? It is circulated by Robert Bruce. -Tyciol

I think you mean "idea". 137.186.42.29 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People known for their moles

[edit]

I removed the part of the article listing people famous for their moles. It seems to just be getting longer and longer, without any real criterion for inclusion. Any re-additions should be cited (probably an article mentioning the characteristic nature of the mole; I'm almost certain these exist for Cindy Crawford). --Eyrian 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Associated Benefits

[edit]

The article http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/07/13/moles.html cites a that moles are linked with slower aging.

Expanded the entry

[edit]

Does anybody know how to redirect this article from a search for “Facial Moles?” Too often, a search for “Moles” brings up the burrowing pest so most U.S. computers users type in the former term

I assume “skin marking,” is a British term. At any rate, it is unfamiliar to readers in the U.S.

I aimed for organizing the piece per MOS requirements and eliminated the existing link box which seemed to refer readers to the coding numbers used by physicians’ staff in medical billing. The link to Disease Database and eMedicine seem to be stubs that should be filed separately under their own names. Plus, it seem like the external link to “beauty marks” belongs inside the prose. Have I got everything else formatted correctly?

In several places, I attribute information on moles to the American Academy of Dermatology. I did not make a reference for, or link to, the section (http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/Moles.htm) because it is labeled “copyright material, not for publication or distribution.” I’m not sure of the Wikipedia policy on that.Charles.Downey 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to link to anything from Wikipedia as long as you're sure it was put there by the owners. A Youtube link to a movie wouldn't be accepted for instance, but this would, as they themselves wrote it. The official policy is at Wikipedia:External links, so read it for more details. --Planetary 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Planetary. I think all Wiki instruction pages should start with a nutshell description.Charles.Downey 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freckle v. mole

[edit]

Distinction not provided in article. —SlamDiego←T 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I'm sorry, but the current image just does not look like a mole to me at all. It looks like a strange, reddish-pink benign growth. Not a mole, though. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know- made me gag a little too. 75.45.215.34 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks nothing like what I know as a mole - which would be a massive freckle-like marking. As if one had been dobbed with a dark brown whiteboard marker.--The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 11:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bleeding?

[edit]

Moles bleed a lot when cut (like in shaving). Could someone add an explanation why? Delmlsfan 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friction Man200000 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mole removal

[edit]

I saw an article on ehow (apparently you're no allowed to link to that website here) that said moles could be removed naturally (and explained how to do it) using natural ingredients, such as honey or garlic. The name of the article is "How to Remove a Mole Naturally". --213.42.23.72 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moles can be removed through the use of creams, which isn't explained in this article. You'd have to be able to cite it in a reliable medical-type journal or something and not one of the web sites of the cream vendors. ABlake (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mole removal with garlic? If that's true, you've gotta cite a better source! I will delete that line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.96.96 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal creams- add to removal area

[edit]

I think maybe there should be a small area under the mole removal section, any suggestion on this? 96.244.254.20 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrated sunlight

[edit]

Is there any information worth mentioning in this article involving mole removal using a lens to concentrate sunlight to burn off a mole (I mean - it's similar to what lasers and radio-waves do to moles - maybe it's possible with sunlight too)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.192.186 (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking section on Aging?

[edit]

The section on aging has been blanked by user "‎CodyHofstetter". I did a quick google search on moles + telomeres and the removed information seems to have been based on a widely repeated news story citing a study by King's College and a Dr. Veronique Bataille (i assume a news story isn't an acceptible source). Now, Dr. Bataille has published a number of papers including: "Bataille V, Kato BS, Falchi M,. Gardner J, Kimura M et al. Naevus size and number are associated with telomere length and represent potential markers of decreased senescence in vivo. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16: 1499-1502" which connects a larger number of moles with longer telomeres. According to telomere, the relation between telomere length and aging is poorly understood and this info can be safely removed.

The info on number and appearance of moles is also correct. "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11813378" giving the typical number of moles as 30-40 with some as many as 600. And "http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/guide/moles-freckles-skin-tags" tells us that new moles normally appear before age 30.

Without objections I will edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineverheardofhim (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melanocytic nevus. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melanocytic_nevus&oldid=1203964390"