Jump to content

User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Chloroplast references

Any reason why you stripped all the references at Chloroplast?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I reverted it, by the way, as I always do when a lot of content is removed without an edit summary. Cathfolant (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
maybe a summary would have been helpful... just trying to use citation bot to harmonize the journal citations.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to refs on cancer and nausea

Your recent edits on the references of cancer and nausea have left several Help:CS1 errors messages in the reference section. I doubt that this is an improvement. Ochiwar (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

maybe you were checking in between edits? when i saw your message, i only saw one error that was created by citation bot and i've put in a bug report. everything should be fixed now. thanks.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 01:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Cite doi

Hey. In this edit you should have used {{cite doi}} – then it works :-) Christian75 (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref style

Why did you change the ref style in the osteoarthritis article? Have restored. Please do not continue making these changes unless you get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been requested not to make these changes a number of times before. If you continue you may lose your ability to edit. Sorry to come down hard like this but continuing as you are is disruptive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
lol… what on earth are you talking about? you can't possibly think that that article had any kind of consistent ref style that i could have been messing up! the refs were done in all kinds of different ways.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
False. You took the least common and most verbose style and made it the only style. In the osteoarthritis article before your changes:
  • total cite templates – 75
    • inline:
      • cite journal tempates – 61
      • cite web templates – 4
      • cite book – 2
    • transcluded:
      • cite pmid + cite journal – 7
  • of which:
    • single or no author parameter – 42
    • first, last, coauthor – 21
    • first1, last1, first2, last2 – 8
    • cite pmid + cite journal – 7
A single author parameter is the most concise followed by first, last, coauthor which is also fairly concise. Combined, these two citation styles represented 39+21=60 of the total citations. The verbose first1, last1, first2, last2, ... represent the remainder. The "first, last, coauthor" is becoming more common because that is what the ref tool bar supports and diberri is down (although I am trying to fix that). What you have done is to replace all the references of which a clear majority were more compact with a more verbose style that was in a clear minority (15 out of 75). You really need to gain consensus before making these types of changes. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
it doesn't matter that i took the most verbose. citevar only talks about articles with a consistent style. it doesn't give any system for how to pick a style or a preference for concise vs. verbose. and you forgot to count the references that were following some random system and those that didn't use templates.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
What matters is that you took the least common style and made it the only style.
— and you forgot to count the references that were following some random system and those that didn't use templates – a grand total of 10 which you haven't changed either. Regardless, this does not change the conclusion (60 is still a majority out of 85). Boghog (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Citevar again

As has been repeatedly explained to you before, this edit is completely unacceptable. There was exactly one three citations out of 31 that had a different citation style. Furthermore that outlier was those three outliers were the most recently added. The solution is to reformat that single those three outliers instead of reformatting all the citations in a new format. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. What are you doing? Why do you keep changing the ref style? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bicycle helmets in New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • in cycling between 1993 and 1997, raising the overall risk of head injury per cyclist.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation |url=http://www.onestreet.org/pdf/Helmet%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Dude, you do some amazing reference-related work. Admiring your input on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thanks  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Ref tool

There is a request for consistent capitalization of article titles here. Wondering if you know of an automated way to do this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. i commented on the copd talk page.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I like having the url for the books go right to the page the content is on. Additionally if it is a single page that supports the content I typically just state that one. Reverted a couple of your changes. Not sure if you changed any others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Additionally Chris can you use the same ordering of sections for references as this tool uses. It is what I always use and makes it easier for me to follow. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Extraversion and introversion

Information icon Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Extraversion and introversion, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

you're going to have to be more specific about what specifically was 'non-constructive'. it all seemed fine to me.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Extraversion and introversion

Information icon Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Extraversion and introversion with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Petrb (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

please explain what is 'nonconstructive' about adding page numbers?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ignore both please. This is just a bug in software I am working on. Petrb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

Hi there. Thanks for contributing to List of vegetable oils. I'm always happy to see contributions. Unfortunately, mixed among the fixes, it appears that you've added some errors, including to references 22, 93 and 95, where it looks like you've deleted most of content of the reference, leaving only the doi or pmid. In a number of other references, it looks like you've deleted the url and accessdate entries. Is there a reason for these deletions? Finally, I notice that you've removed page ranges in many cases, leaving only the first page of the range. Again, is there a reason for the deletion? Waitak (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

i went back and tried to add back more info. citation bot didn't fill everything out the way i expected and then i had to go out. some links were to the same place as the doi or pmid. is there really a point to leaving a link that could go bad when the resource identifier is more persistent and goes to the same place?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point. If there's already a link in the citation, there's no need to add another. I'll go over it again later today and see if there are any other glitches. Thanks again for chipping in. Waitak (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Refs

I do not see the point of these edits thus reverted. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fish oil

Hi Chris. Would you please check when you are replacing links with dois or pmids that the links you are replacing are not to pdfs or the full text of the article. I always provide complete article links when I can locate them. In the fish oil article the effect of your edits was to replace five pdfs and three full article views with abstracts. It can be a lot of work sometimes tracking down complete articles, and it is disheartening to see the work wasted like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYLINK: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 04:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The links were generally legitimate. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Authors are often allowed to host their own papers on their own website and others are allowed to link to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marriage and health

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marriage and health you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the top contributors to marriage and health since the original nominator is no longer active. Feel free to participate in the process or just ignore/delete this message. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William P. Didusch Center for Urologic History may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • exciting approaches in presenting urologic history, not only in the USA - a personal guided tour] |language=German |journal=Der Urologe |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=483–8 |year=2011 |month=April |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation!!!

Mil gracias, thank you so much, Chris, for your intricate and valuable editing of medical publications citations on the Chukwuedu Nwokolo article. But what's the point of sneaking back the

template in the Photo gallery section when I already sorted it out with MrX? And you did not even put "Edit Summary" to say that you put the template back, and no summary of your medical citation correction edits that are very good? I already told MrX that I removed the template according to [[2]]: "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images." I removed repetitive images already used in article. And also for the following reason, based on Wikipedia rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

Please, help and be kind to me on this Wikipedia experience because that photo gallery is useful for better understanding of the subject, family and article. There's no need for us to start fighting because of claenup gallery template. Let us use the Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule:

Shortcuts

for this article, please. Muchas gracias, amigo! Thank you! Mgvlight (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilhelm Reich may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • christopher-turner/naughty-children Turner (''London Review of Books''), 6 October 2005]. Also see {{cite journal |author=Danto EA |title=The Ambulatorium: Freud's free clinic in Vienna |journal=The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits on bipolar disorder in children

Hello Chris, thanks for helping out on editing this page! If possible, do you mind leaving a quick line whenever you make changes? It's easier to track the stuff you edited that way :) Thanks!! Ongmianli (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Superfruit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Superfruit, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the parameter "month" for Template:Cite journal it places articles in the cleanup categories. DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

dyslexia/

I would like to thank you personally , for your edits to this article, I myself have been hard pressed to find someone to help ( I have done about 100 edits / and deleted some 12,000 bytes since taking it ) I want to thank you for this and any contribution--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


The Teamwork Barnstar
for your help on dyslexia/wikiproject med Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

dyslexia/ do you think its ready for GA nomination?

let me know, here, on my talk page or the article talk page when you can--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

\I think its better if we remove that last line "surface dyslexia" I cant find a secondary ref to it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

it's a pretty good article. i'm don't have any medical background, but it seems to me like it could stand more review articles and fewer primary sources (see WP:RSMED). maybe if you nominate it, someone will step up with enough background to easily identify better sources.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

nominated GA ( however there are 300 articles ahead of us) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

the lead-off file (teacup) has been deleted from Wikipedia commons?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

yep. copyright violation.

I added something else, what do you think--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

that image only works if you have some reliable source explaining how it actually goes with dyslexia.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


BTW I got Tom (t910001)User_talk:LT910001 to review the article, he's a med reviewer/ done GA nominations before --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


should we just forget about putting a ref on the dyslexic image caption?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[1] this is the original ref, do you think we need better?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you don't even understand the problem. What in any of these references specifically says that this image is at all representative of anything related to the article? As far as I can tell, it's just original research.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rearranging refs and removing PMIDs

Not sure why you are doing this? Thus reverted your changes [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also typically the PMID and DOI go at the end of the template. Can you please format the same as the tool in he edit box, for example:
{{cite journal|last1=Rauramo|first1=L|last2=Lagerspetz|first2=K|last3=Engblom|first3=P|last4=Punnonen|first4=R|title=The effect of castration and peroral estrogen therapy on some psychological functions.|journal=Frontiers of hormone research|date=1975|volume=3|pages=94-104|pmid=1234567}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

PMIDs

Thanks for adding PMIDs such as you have done in these edits [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neurosurgery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • #[[oncological neurosurgery]] (also called [[neurosurgical oncology]]; includes [[pediatric oncological neurosurgery]]; treatment
  • are managed.<ref>''Principles of Neurosurgery- Rengachary, Ellenbogen''{{full}}{{pn}}</ref>>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag removal

Hi, Chris. It looks like you've been systematically removing citation improvement tags (page needed, nonspecific, etc) while formatting refs without these improvements having being made. If it's deliberate, please stop. If not, please be more careful. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

not sure which edit or citation you're talking about. if it's Bakht's doi:10.2202/1554-4419.1022, it doesn't have page numbers.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 17:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
You've just deleted a verification failed tag with this edit a few minutes ago. Have you verified the source? Two nonspecific tags were gone here with no further specification made. As to the Bakht paper, the publicly available copy is paginated, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a page in a 26-page paper. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Bakht has pages but not page numbers. Click the cite/export link on the publisher's page, and even the publisher cites their own article without page numbers. For Coulson, the citation now has a chapter with pages that seemed like they verified when I read it. What did you think?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not there are page number in an official version is tangential to the purpose of these tags. Their purpose is to ask for improving the citation so that it can be verified without having to browse through many pages of text. If there are no page numbers, the same request can be met by specifying a section or providing a quote. The overwhelming majority of statements can be, should be, and are supported by citing a single page or a similarly specific location. We're here to improve the WP, including by making it easier to verify, correct? Removing these tags seems to do the opposite of that. Eperoton (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chris Capoccia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Open access

Hi. When you made the automated changes to Systematic review did you spot that you had removed the open access template from the PRISMA reference? These templates sit within the reference bracket after the citation template to allow them to display alongside the details in the reference section. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

i've added them back for all the articles with PMC, but it seems redundant as cite journal already automatically adds the green unlock for pmc.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. There is some overlap, but as far as I know the PMC template green unlock icon indicates free access, rather than indicating whether the item is one of PMC's one million open access articles. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

PMID 24843434

Hi, in this edit you added PMID 24843434 to three different citations, it wasn't the correct PMID for any of them. I've now removed it. What happened? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for fixing. I really don't remember what I was doing. It was clearly incorrect. these articles don't have a PMID. I fixed the page numbers just now to match the DOI records.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 17:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Destructive Edits

What happened here (and here and here &c.)? This edit decimated several citations, losing valuable information, and the subsequent lossy reconstructions by bots have made them quite time-consuming to repair.

chocolateboy (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

not clear on your use of "destructive"… most of them have to be compared as more than one action like this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klebsiella_pneumonia&type=revision&diff=761891523&oldid=760470400   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

These edits are discarding:

  • publication dates
  • access dates
  • page numbers
  • publishers
  • URLs
  • quotes
  • and corrections

The bots are provided to expand stubs and other inadequate and incomplete references, not to "fix" citations which have already been compiled and corrected manually, often painstakingly.

chocolateboy (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data. from Template:Cite_journal#Publisher, publisher is not normally used. also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
---
the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data

It ought to be clear from the truncated dates (2002 vs January 2002) that the PubMed data is a subset of what can be gleaned from the original publications. In this case, the linked article also includes the author's full name. I fail to see how the article is improved by snipping these details.

publisher is not normally used
also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID

It says the access date is "not necessary", rather than "not used" in this case, but fine. That's at most 2/7 defensible deletions.

My biggest concern here is the removal of the quote, which turned a sourced statement ("in extremely rare cases") into what looks like an unsourced POV. Eventually, without the quote for context, it would have been flagged with {{citation needed}} and removed. And once citations are mangled in this way, I doubt most editors even notice, let alone have the time, energy or patience to go back and repair them.

chocolateboy (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hemovanadin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Evolution of mammals without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jschnur (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

URLs that point to the same place as DOIs; previous edit in same article was similar.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 01:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Emily Ying Yang Chan

Your edit on Emily Ying Yang Chan is producing several items which show no information. I urge you to NOT edit in this way UNTIL you can actually deliver the result that you intend to produce. Can't you at least LOOK at your resulting page AFTER-wards and PERSONALLY revert your edits when they remove from the bibliography the publication information that should be readable by site visitors?

You seem to be having the SAME problems editing THIS bibliographic data that you have exhibited for the past several months (see above). Please don't try these advanced techniques, which you have demonstrated that you cannot successfully do. MaynardClark (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mirror box Article

I would like to update the Effectiveness section of the Mirror Box Article. However, I am not familiar with the template for references that is being used. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to figure it out but I have not succeeded. Can you point me in the right direction --I assume Wikipedia has a help page on this topic.Neurorel (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

start here? Template:Harvard citation   —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 03:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Genetic studies on Jews

Information icon Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Genetic studies on Jews. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Please read this: Wikipedia:Avoiding edit-conflicts --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

lol wut?! far as i can tell there was one of my 6 edits that overwrote anything of yours  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
oh, yeah… and there was the one edit where you reverted me before citation bot could fill out the refs… so we're probably even  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
We are not even because I didn't revert any part of your or your bot's edits. You did it several times. It's because you making large edits at once and ignoring edit-conflict warning when saving your edits. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chris Capoccia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Google books template

Adding specialized templates such as the Google books one makes translation more complicated and thus I have restored the prior version.[5] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

you should complain to the template pages for all of these like Template:EMedicine or Template:Google books that you keep reverting because those pages give no guidance about restrictions on use. What's next? Are you going to complain about the patent citation templates too? Just migrate templates to new language wikis.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
many languages don't have cite book or cite journal. For example, Slovak uses sk:Šablóna:Citácia_knihy & sk:Šablóna:Citácia periodika.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
also, your revert on Tardive dyskinesia left an error message: "|chapter= ignored" and a sub-par result.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
some 6000 pages use Template:Google books. are you planning on changing all of those too?

Referencing edits

Hello! Could you briefly explain the rationale for edits like this one? I understand some earlier edits to the page where you removed untemplated references and let Citation Bot fill in the templates. However in the edit linked above it looks as if you removed all the templated references just to have Citation Bot fill those templates back in based on the PMID? I guess I must be missing something... anyway a brief rationale would be helpful. Thanks! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

you should really look at the whole series of 7 edits including intermediate bot edits [6] and you'll see that there were a whole series of improvements including things like:
  • changing reference names from ReferenceA to pmid15173835
  • replacing et al with author names
  • consistent formatting for reference pmid23954397
  • moving reference immune_glycan from inside of reflist up to inline with first use like all other references
  • reformatting the journal articles listed in External links to be the same as the journal articles in references
  • replacing vauthor list with first/last list
i know some editors really like their vauthor lists, so if that's a problem, feel free to change back. but i have no problem explaining why i think overall these edits are an improvement. it's just that all the details don't fit very well in an edit summary box  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems like most of those things are setting your preferred style over other equally-valid citation styles (having PMIDs for reference names isn't an improvement, using the display_authors parameter to finish an author list with et al is fine, vauthors is just as valid as first1/last1, etc.). Silly as it may seem, this has been the topic of considerable fighting over the years. In general, common practice here is to defer to the style of the first major contributor to the article. WP:CITEVAR has a bit more on this.
That said, if you're interested in citation formatting, there's lots of places where you could be a huge help! If you direct your attention to one of the many citation maintenance categories like Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs, Category:Pages with citations lacking titles you'll see literally thousands of incorrectly-formatted citations ("incorrectly" meaning they're formatted in a way that prevents them from being properly verifiable). Category:CS1_errors has all of the citation template formatting errors. If you're interested in doing this within the confines of certain topics, many WikiProjects have a list of all articles tagged with maintenance templates (updates weekly, every Tuesday) which is a good place to start as well. If you have questions/concerns, feel free to ask. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
How is replacing vauthor list with first/last list an improvement? |vauthor= does everything that |first=/|last= does (see comparison table) and does two things that first/last does not do: (1) vauthors insures that first names are consistently formatted and (2) vauthors is more compact (see rationale). Boghog (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree. These wholesale changes aren't great (and "pmid173727" is not a good identified - I often use identifiers which are human-readable to aid reuse). Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing the names of the refs

Why did you change the name to the PMID? Having the year in the name IMO is useful. Thus will switch back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to check for duplicates and make sure that two refs weren't falling under different names. For example, there were two different refs for Anderson & Perry 2006. Some refs were named after authors and dates, some refs were named after some noun in the title like "pain" or "Enigma", some refs weren't named, some refs used the pmid number style. Anyway, I think all the duplicates are combined now, so I don't mind that you've changed the style for some of the refs back to author-year.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sheila Kitzinger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Vernon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203994/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_Capoccia/Archive_3&oldid=1142930052"