Talk:Nevus of Ota

Errors in this article
1) hydroquinone is not a treamtment for nevus of Ota 2) The included photo is not nevus of Ota. THis is probably a conjunctival nevus - a totally different lesion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.37.216.82 (talk) 12:06, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Article categorization
This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference matter
What is meant by against reference 2?--User:Brenont (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It means page 700 of that reference. See Template:Rp.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

Dubious
(Especially ) The use of this picture implies this nevus can also be brown, at least in the eye. Either the picture is wrongly captioned both here AND on the Commons AND wrongly categorized there (and I don't know how to tag those things on the Commons!) OR the text needs to be updated with an appropriate reference.

NOTES: The given reference in the body text is a dead link anyway, which I tagged in a ref parameter although no [dead link] appeared in body or ref text. Please note another person disputed this image at the top of this talk page. Sorry this is all I can do, but my real-life limitations get in the way of doing anything more. (Whew!) Thanks in advance! —Geekdiva (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

- You had these images in the article but next removed them yourself. Would you tell us why? Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Geekdiva I do not remember. Feel free to restore them if you wish. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Figured it out. Promotional editing by a group of socks. Still fine with you restoring the images now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)