AaronottoJennings
July 2016
editHello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse was changed by AaronottoJennings (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.955069 on 2016-07-26T01:39:53+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit- Hi AaronottoJennings! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 03:22, Friday, July 29, 2016 (UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Thanks for your user page entry
editMaybe this will help us better understand your aims. The recent edit to Potassium will probably stand, though some would say that hypertension should only be linked once in the article. Additional links after the first are considered overlinking. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- I genuinely thank you.
- Your edits on Hypertension may run into trouble. First, the list you're editing is introduced as coming from a specific source. That should be treated as if it were a quote and should not be changed. Second, the standard for references on medical topics is the stricter WP:MEDRS guideline and quoting individual study results is often not considered sufficiently reliable. Third, you're not formatting your citations properly, so they may not be considered adequate as references. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- the information is accurate. if you could help me frame it correctly or point me in the right direction? need all the help. thank you.
- "the article is called Does potassium supplementation lower blood pressure? A meta-analysis of published trials." meta analysis qualifiesas 19 studies
- im checking into the formatting issue. still learning. little slowly.
- A meta-analysis is generally a better source than a single study, yes. This is not an area where I feel I have enough expertise to jump in, can just offer advice from the sidelines. You should be able to find references in that same article that do the referencing correctly, you just need to imitate what they do to get yours to format in the standard way. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits on Hypertension may run into trouble. First, the list you're editing is introduced as coming from a specific source. That should be treated as if it were a quote and should not be changed. Second, the standard for references on medical topics is the stricter WP:MEDRS guideline and quoting individual study results is often not considered sufficiently reliable. Third, you're not formatting your citations properly, so they may not be considered adequate as references. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Blocked
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)- Per the screed on your userpage and your logged-out behavior (including "So better stop me cause im gonna do it..." and "I might suggest you block me. save me some trouble", your continued insistence that your Bible (and yours alone) is the only truth), it is clear that you are either incapable or unwilling to truly edit collaboratively. Your switching between an account and your IP address has also confused other editors, an illegitimate use of alternate accounts.
- Any further edits made by you by any means (except for appealing your block on this talk page and only this talk page) will be block evasion (which we treat no differently than vandalism). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
editPlease note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).