User talk:Heelop

Are you User:72.224.168.161? If so, please log in and use ~~~~ instead of manually linking to this name. enochlau (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please be aware you just broke 3RR on mucoid plaque. Do not revert again. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for disruption. This is for 48 hours to give the other editors there a rest. Your edit summaries are misleading, your edits problematic. Please take your proposed changes to Talk and do not disrupt Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heelop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The user named Nomen Nescio has been giving misleading and false information about me on the Administrators' noticeboard.Please examine this closely. First, he falsely claims that I remove any reference that this concept is not supported by the medical community. This is a lie. If you look at my edit histories in the article "mucoid plaque" you will see that I left the edits that say that "these words or even the concept have never been described in the major medical journals" as well as "a search of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database does not return any article that uses the precise term mucoid plaque" as well as "Neither can it be found in the major textbooks on Internal Medicine, i.e. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine." as well as those very skeptical testimonies from two practicing pathologist. If you look at the "Discussion" page under the heading "Verifiably Untrue Statements" you will see that I have been only removing verifiably false statements that there is no mention in any conventional medical literature of a thick coating of a mucus-like material lining the alimentary canal. These specific statements or suggestions are verifiably false and thus do not belong on Wiki. Although the general medical community does not recognize this, there are, as Richard Anderson points out, a number of conventional medical journals that describe a thick coating of mucus-like material in the alimentary canel. Nomen Nescio wants to insist that even this simple specific fact is not true! Second, he claims that I can't provide any article from a medical journal describing the concept of mucoid plaque. This is also a lie. If you look at the Discussion Page under the heading "WP:NOR" you will see that I provide two journals describing the concept but not using the specific term mucoid plaque. He is playing semantical games by insisting that the exact phrase mucoid plaque be used or else the whole concept is not real or described. Note that mucoid plaque is simply a phrase that means "a plaque of a mucus-like substance". This is like saying that those articles do not describe mucus in the gut because the exact phrase "mucus in the gut" is not used. Nomen Nescio is also not assuming good faith by suggesting that I have a financial interest rather than a superficial interest in this topic only because I am a proponent of this type of alternative medicine. Nescio is an extremist who has been diverting attention away from writing factually accurate NPOV articles by engaging in excessive wikilawyering and character assassinations. A final note. Take a look at my most recent edit in the history page. Nomen Nescio is falsely claiming that Richard Anderson or some other alternative medicine doctor is suggesting "that thickening the lining of the colon would inhibit digestion". The problem with this is that no one is suggesting this! In fact, Richard Anderson explicitly states that mucoid plaque in the small intestines, not the colon, inhibits digestion. He is purposely making this up to make him look stupid. I have repeatedly tried to take this down, giving a clear explanation in the edit summary but he insists on putting it back up. I was actually blocked for taking this false information down! Is this what wikipedia is all about? This false information is still up there!

Decline reason:

Reading all that would take longer than waiting for your block to expire. Do not make personal attacks or your block may be extended in duration. -- Sandstein 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mucoid Plaque

You requested WP:MEDCAB after the article and talk page had been inactive for months. I was going to mediate it before someone pointed this out to me, and has been closed. On that note, if you wish to continue and conflict arises, re-add the request; in the mean-time, I suggest adding somewhere (probably in your user space) the parts you wish to add. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

fringe

Thanks for the quote from WP:FRINGE. I'll have to review that guideline -- should have already. We'll be able to make a longer article this way. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Diversifying

Thanks so much for the Wiki Wiffle Bat! Wow!

I was intending to send you a message anyway. I'd like to encourage you to diversify your Wikipedian contributions. If you get in the habit of spending a few minutes here and there on other parts of the wiki, you might soon find that it's rather enjoyable, as well as useful. Activities you might like to try include wikifying articles, recent changes patrol, random page patrol, or other "Things to do" listed at the Community Portal. Feel free to ask me questions about how to do any of those things.

Here's some standard welcome information with some links that you may find useful, though by now you already know a lot of this stuff:

Welcome!

Hello, Heelop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Coppertwig (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you haven't been editing much lately. I hope to see you around again soon! --Coppertwig (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

Thank you for this invitation to edit Mucoid plaque. Considering the WP:CANVASS guideline, how did you decide to contact me? Who else, if anyone, did you contact? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mucoid plaque, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (3rd nomination). Thank you. ZayZayEM (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

please take more care when addressing other editors

The edit summary in this diff ("Hypocrisy makes one look disingenuous") is starting to verge into a personal attack --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, Heelop. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

It seems that it falls to me to notify you that you should consider yourself banned from the topic mucoid plaque. This is a community action and may be appealed to the arbitration committee. If you edit the article or its talk page, or engage in further inappropriate advocacy on this subject, then you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)