User talk:AaronottoJennings

July 2016

Hello, 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)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

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

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thanks for your user page entry

Maybe 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, AaronottoJennings, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome 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:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

AaronottoJennings, good luck, and have fun. – NgYShung ^huh? 06:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, AaronottoJennings. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please 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).[reply]