User talk:Teststrips

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Nitric oxide, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.
 * Also, referencing peer reviewed papers is really easy using the "cite DOI" template. Simply see the instructions here which generate a reference automatically using the DOI code. Testem (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are: If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many new editors cite themselves mainly, see WP:REFSPAM.   That behavior is unacceptable.

HI, I AM NOT SURE HOW TO CONTACT YOU, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CHANGES TO NITRITE AND NITRATE IN LIGHT OF VERY EXCITING AND NEW ADVANCEMENTS IN THIS AREA. EVERY TIME I MAKE A CHANGE THEY ARE REJECTED. IN BRIEF, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE HEALTH BENEFITS REGARDS THESE MOLECULES REFERRED TO AS THE NITRATE_NITRITE_NITRIC OXIDE PATHWAY, IT EXPLAINS HOW NITRIC OXIDE IS PRODUCED THROUGH VEGETABLES. HENCE THE REASON FOR DOING SO. THE CURRENT INFO ON NITRATE AND NITRITE IS NOT NECESSARY CORRECT. AT THE VERY LEAST IT NEEDS UPDATING. THANK YOU and sorry for the bold letter (please erase this message)
 * Hi there. I can help you because I am the one who is causing you problems.  Here are my concerns:

1) See my message below - why are you adding .com links? 2) You also seem to be referencing the same articles repeatedly in many places within wikipedia. That behavior is worrying to editors here. 3) Wikipedia avoids offering advice about "health benefits". We recommend submitting that kind of information to a blog or similar newsletter. 4) My overall advice is to just edit one article and focus on basic biochemistry.

If you need it, I can help you. If you want to talk to anyone here, you can click on their user name link. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GOOD ADVICE. YOUR RESPONSE WAS HELPFUL; I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND THE EDITORS CONCERNS. I WILL TAKE YOUR ADVICE TO HEART. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR BULLET POINT, HERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS; 1. I USE .COM BECAUSE IT WAS A SIMPLE EASY SOURCE... HOWEVER, I WONT USE SUCH SITES AGAIN. 2. I USED THESE REFERENCE THESE REVIEWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH IN CITATIONS SO ANYONE WHO WANTED TO FOLLOW THIS FIELD WOULD FIND THE REVIEW HELPFUL (BY THE WAY I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THESE REVIEWS)... BUT I CAN MINIZE SUCH REVIEWS IN SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS. 3. YES, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN CONVEYING HEALTH BENEFITS, HOWEVER, PLEASE READ MY FUTURE CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO 'NITRITE' AND 'NITRATE' AS NEW DISCOVERIES. FOR EXAMPLE, DIETARY NITRATE FROM VEGETABLES IS A SOURCE OF NITRIC OXIDE -- THIS IS NOT HEALTH ADVICE, SIMPLY BIOCHEMICAL FACTS; AT PRESENT, NITRATE IS DISCUSSED AS A TOXIC SUBSTANCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS RE-WRITTING HOW WE PERCEIVE NITRATE. ANYWAY, I WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR POINTS ARE WELL INTENDED. THANK YOU.

Please do not insert .com links
When we see repeated addition of links to .com sources, editors like me suspect WP:LINKSPAM. So please either explain your edits more fully in the "edit summary" or on the relevant talk pages. Wikipedia is under continuous pressure from self-promotion and commercial promotion, hence this wariness. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cardioprotective factor


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Cardioprotective factor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 11) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 12) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 13) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!
 * 14) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 15) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)