This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Chris Capoccia/Archive 1. Welcome to Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopaedia that anyone can edit! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We'll certainly be looking forward for your contributions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Sarg 14:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nose picking pic
Thank you for your defense. User:Boisemedia is mad that I deleted a link to a website he maintains from the article Boise media. That, I would say is self-serving. He wrote a message on my talk page thanking me for removing it, but has now reverted it, and started this petty controversy over the pic. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Howdy!
How about some info on your user page? WikiDon 15:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
A simple page is now in place, and I fixed my signature to point to the right page. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 15:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Since you posted earlier saying that the title should be changed, check out the discussion page. There's a request that the movie be given a separate article and the book the main article. --DrBat 22:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my change of US -> U.S., and quoted Acronym and initialism. However, that article states that American usage still requires the periods unless it's a pronounced acronym. Since U.S. is always spoken as its letters (as opposed to the word "us"), and the U.S. is certainly an American subject (as is Posse Comitatus Act, the article you reverted), the periods are appropriate and the preferred usage. Additionally, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations, which specifically endorses the U.S. usage. —Cleared as filed. 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a native American English speaker, but not an expert, so have mostly just anectdotal evidence that "U.S." is not in general use. I looked quickly for some kind of online style guide that agreed with my experience, and the first one I found was from Canada’s IRDCStyle Guide: Chapter 7: Abbreviations and addresses. But the more I look, the more I see that it evidently is not settled which way it should be written, and different groups have a consistent preference over how it should be done. So my final conclusion would be that niether of our edits should have been made. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 07:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
However, for consistency's sake, encyclopedias should have a standard usage, and according to the Manual of Style, U.S. is the standard usage here. —Cleared as filed. 13:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Caron/hacek vote
There's a vote on Talk:caron where the article should be if you're interested. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you noticed, but I just wished to tell you that Splitbean just deleted the entire article. I noticed that you had a large amount of contributions to the article. Would you like me to allow Splitbean to place {{db-author}} on it? I will revert the changes for the moment. Yours, PhilipGronowskiContribs 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article should be deleted. I do think Splitbean must have thought he could get some free advertising for his company, and was a little frustrated to find out that only encyclopedic entries are acceptable. In my opinion the company is on the edge of not being notable, but should not be deleted either. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
re: French don’t use English capitalization rules from 2006/06/01
I was just following the movie's poster, which seemed like a logical thing to do. The French use your casing, too, but for other films they the English style: fr:Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain. Never mind me. --213.196.5.160 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Fred Wiseman
Hi Chris. I saw that your discussion page is untouched so i wasn't sure if you wanted people to leave messages there.
removed "Curiously, none of Wiseman's films are available on DVD or VHS in the consumer market." the movies are available, but at exhorbitant prices. $250 to rent Titicut Follies, for example.
That's pretty much what we meant by not in the consumer market. Want to add the info about the prices of the movies? --WikipediaAdventures
interesting. fwiw, zipporah films is wiseman's company, i think it's him and one other person. i'm pretty sure he has complete control over his intellectual property and has chosen to keep his films out of wide distribution. why? i don't know. --Johnjosephbachir (aka WikipediaAdventures)
minor edits
Hi! I just noticed that you placed an OR tag on the King-James-Only page. I fully agree with you that the page deserves it, and particularly the passage in question. However, I would ask you to be more discriminate when using the minor-edit checkbox. I guess that most users would say that such a tag is nowhere near a minor edit. Most people don't look at minor edits when they see them on their observation pages (some even filter them out), but an OR-tag should be noticed by the editors of an article, and that's why a minor-edit is not such a good idea in a situation like that. Otherwise, thanks for your effort to improve that page, which really is in need of serious re-work. Landroving Linguist (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
KJV Only
I removed the KJV Only category tag that you added to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While it is true that the LDS Church has an official set of scriptures that uses the KJV translation, there is no problem with people using other translations. No claim is made that the KJV is "better" or "worse" than any other translation. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)(Talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the heads-up. Good to see a discussion started on cleaning up the KJV-only article. I can't promise much (see my comment on the talk page), but I'll help out as best I can. -- Kesh (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Klejas
I'm not sure what that character is up to, but I posted an incident at WP:ANI asking for help. I think there's a place to report vandals specifically, but I forget what it is. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 13:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion
(warning removed)
this really doesn't explain much and i can't figure out which one of my recent edits got reverted. i've been going through the article reformatting references, which definitely isn't vandalism. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the warning, it doesn't apply to you at all because you haven't done anything wrong. The user who left the warning for you has been making some errors in that regard today. I've removed the warning and I'll talk to him again.
Thanks for cleaning up the references I listed in the Vaclav Klaus article. I often edit on the run and don't take the time to do it properly - thank you for cleaning up after my mess!
BWH76 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Confection
You reverted edits on pistachio based on the idea that ice cream is not a confection. The Wikipedia entry for confection does in fact list ice cream as a confection. But, I agree that this looks jarring to the casual American-English reader in particular and there is no real reason to insist on it. Rumpuscat (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
well, the confection article only includes one unreliable source. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
i added a source. does wikisource even count as a reliable source since it doesn't cite any sources? — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if wikisource wasn't a credible source what would its point be? Wikisource generally links to the content it mirrors. - Schrandit (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The root page for all the UNSC resolutions currently available there links to here, which is where the text is made available to the public. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Partial revert
Hi, I have partially reverted this edit. Please read up on Template:Citation. In my opinion, this is better than the individual templates {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} because it provides the additional functionality needed to do Harvard citations (see {{Harv}}). Fortunately, there were no Harvard citations (yet) in the article in question. However, if there had been, then changing the templates would have broken the existing citations. So, if you see {{Citation}} in the future, please do not replace it with {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}. Thanks, and happy editing, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
it doesn't make much difference to me, and if you find one method more helpful, that's fine. i've been using the wikipedia template filler. it's a very convenient tool that generates {{cite book}} from the isbn and {{cite journal}} from pmid. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh... I had assumed you were using an automated tool. Try to avoid doing overwriting {{citation}} templates. For reasons that defy understanding, among the standard citation templates, this is the only one that works properly with Harvard-style references. Thanks! siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice edits. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it true then? Original research?
So, all these extraneous "In popular culture" sections, are they officially considered OR? (If so... yesssss) --Blehfu (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for expanding the naked PMIDs on Tapetum lucidum into citation format. Just one small quibble. I notice you wrapped the citations that already were correctly formatted. When editing an article, I find it much easier to read if the citations are structured, not wrapped, because I can skip over them to where the text continues. --Una Smith (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
sometimes, yes, although i've seen some articles with a lot of citations throughout the sentences that were also difficult to follow with the vertical format. but, if that's the way you like it, go ahead and change it. it was easier for me to just put the pmid into the template filler and paste directly into the article without reformatting. — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Many citations make for difficult editorial reading, no matter what the format, but the vertical format makes it less difficult. On the template filler page, checking Pad parameter names and values produces the vertical format. --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed you put the tag back and then removed it for inline cites... If you feel it still needs more please feel free to put the tag back up I understand completely. I am not done in my attempts at improving the article, but if you feel it will draw more people in to help out then I have nothing against it. anyway just thought I would mention it %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
First Ancient Hebrew Formal Equivalence translation of the Bible
The work of Rabbi Amariel is described as a 'New Matter: some new text, English translation &
compilation.' Hence, the work was considered by the Library of Congress the 'first' published
work of its kind. That is a respectable source enough for both the formal equivalence page and
the Howshua Amariel page. However, if you would prefer still another third party source I found
one searching Rabbi Amariel's name in Google at http://www.planetnana.co.il/igbos/ (Igbo
Interest World Wide- under BOOKS).
The page states "The historic translation of the ancient Hebrew Bible/Tanach, into English.
Chief Howshua amariel is from Chicago, one of the lost tribes of Israel. Today he lives in the
ancient land of Israel, in the desert of Har or mount Ephraim. He has successfully completed a
4years historic projectpourquoi pas vous belive je? of translating the ancient Hebrew text of
the Bible/Tanach into English. As we all know, the present Bible/Tanah, translation went through
a couple of languages before English, thereby, it was severely altered. Thus, there are elements
of errors in its interpretations and meaning...." etc. Which should also qualify as a reliable
third party source that at least suggest that it's stated outside the Amariel Family.
Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations ; don't you notice that this work is the
definition of a bible translation (except this work is directly from the Old Hebrew to English
and has no interpretation in it).
I will add back to the formal equivalence page the biblical translation 'THIS REPORT: The
Hebrew/ Phoenician History called the Bible', because it is an extensive formal equivalence
translation. It cann't be defined as anything other than that. Notice how on the Copyright
office page they defined it as a text with an English translations. That is the same as any
interlinear Bible that are published except interpretations are taken completely out of this
work and it is credited as beginning 'kosher' because it doesn't change the orginal Old Hebrew
words.
The other biblical translations are bible text interpretations. The difference is the point of
the bible translation debate itself. The other translations are more so interpretations which
the interpretators wrote from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or old Ethiopian. 'THIS REPORT' offers
the most pure translation one can get when translating because it displays the word-for-word
meaning of each 'Old Hebrew' word that makes it unique and thus the first of its kind (an
extensive formal equivalence translation).
So having the extreme formal equivalence, other semi-interpretations, and the complete
interpretations on the formal equivalence page is perfect to show anyone interested in the
differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.175.158 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
firstly, Aramaic primacy is not the dominant scholarly view. that's probably a big reason why amariel's work is largly ignored. another big reason is the publishing method. is the translation published? who is the publisher? is there any isbn? most bible translations are done by a team of recognized scholars. what is amariel's scholarly recognition? why did he do the translation all by himself? what do other scholars think of his work? are there any reliable third party reviews? igbos definitely doesn't count as reliable. there are a lot of groups claiming to be some part of the Ten Lost Tribes. why should i believe any of them? — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't add cite tags to things like namesakes. The namesake of the Division of Makin is Norman Makin. See the division article and the AEC ref at the bottom. It is not contentious, there is no need to reference things like that in other articles. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
sorry, but you still need more citations of secondary and tertiary sources. there is nothing in the census data to support a lot of the statements in the article. the original research policy and the verifiability policy cover things in more situations than only when they are "contentious". — Chris CapocciaT⁄C 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Origen of Alexandria
Hi! I noticed your work on this page. Thanks a lot!
The point is that some Wikipedians would return to the old name for the main page, which is definitely not consistent: pagenames should be explicit, not based on the presumption that everyone knows which particular person is the main carrier of a name.
The discussion is somewhat confused because the Origen page that I created by leaving unnecessary information from the old article contains a few external links that constitute spam. Maybe you could remove these?
Please have a look at the discussion and place a word in favor of maintaining Origen of Alexandria as the pagename for the main article.
Thank you very much. --Dampinograaf (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this diff and others like it: links to one page or another of that site showed up on about fifteen pages all at once. I reverted fourteen of the additions. If you look closely, you can see that it is a thinly disguised commercial site, with books to sell on every page. In particular, the mode page adds very little to the articles it was scattered upon. For now, I'm assuming this was not true spam, but a spate of enthusiastic good faith edits. Best regards, __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
my thought was that since most of the articles had large unsourced sections, one more reasonably informative external link couldn't hurt. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Still, I'd rather see sources more authoritative than that one. I'll keep an eye out for cites relevant to the pages you tagged here. Thanks! __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
references?
Saw the edit you made...
The article can only really reference the subject, which is the book itself, which I just added.
How is that?
The Future of MoneyNittyG (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The book itself is a primary source. See WP:PSTS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yo Chris, I've noticed you've been doing great work on fixing and upgrading citations (i.e. here). I'm wondering if you're using an automated process or are doing it by hand? Skomorokh 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
well, i'm not a bot, but i do use dberri's tool and a few other things. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
abortion article
You're doing great work, thanks!--Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That Notability tag...
The one on Robot Wars: Arenas of Destruction. Please could you elaborate as to why you question its notability? There are no specific guidelines for inclusion of videogame articles, but to me a multi-platform release like that is inclusion-worthy. I believe general practice is that most games released for any of the major consoles is considered notable, and certainly one released on several and one that is part of a series of several. Is there any specific part of the guideline you could quote in rebuttal to this? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Improving references is no glamorous work, so if many people come to a user page to thank them for just that, it is remarkable! — Sebastian 18:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: I originally used the standard version of this template, but then it occurred to me that "Chris" can also be a woman's name, so I adjusted the message to be gender neutral. If you decide to post this on your user page and prefer to be referred as "man" or "woman", please change the parameter after "#switch:" from "n" to "m" or "w" and replace "{{genderneutral|em}}" with the pronoun of your choice. — Sebastian 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting! So, what word would best express the idea of "workman" if one were to award this barnstar to a woman? — Sebastian 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)
That article has a lot more problems than the lack of citations. In fact, it reads like it was lifted in toto from somewhere else - such as maybe the book that's cited. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
that could be… if you can verify that it is a copyright violation, you can mark it with {{Copyvio}}. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the book. But the somewhat POV-ish wording suggests it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ndaba kaMageba since the nomination, I have found and added 8 sources about this person. I understand why you initially thought this was a hoax or a nonnotable person, I did too. Maybe the page needs to be renamed. Ikip (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you for closing the AfD. Have a wonderful week. Ikip (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you have done there! However, the citation bot does not always pick up the coauthors and final page number, not sure why. I have restored those details manually. Babakathy (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
change to cite arxiv
I see that you changed the citation formats on the black hole page. First note that it is considered bad form to unilaterally change the citation format on page that is consequently using a different citation format. To make things worse in your effort you have removed a lot of information from the citations. Many citation had an arxiv reference in addition to the information about where the articles were actually published. In your switch to cite arxiv you have remove all publishing information from the citations. This removes a lot of info about the reliability of the citations. (arxiv contains a lot of bullshit, so if something has actually been published this is very relevant.) I'm about to leave for vacation, so i don't really have time go through your extensive edit right now. Hope you can fix it. (TimothyRias (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
Sig
Heh, and I thought I was the only one with a sig like this :) — Hex(❝?!❞) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding excess tags to minor stubs
Hi, I think it is pretty obvious that many articles have these problems. It would be better you tried to expand them rather than adding three tags to them. If you must add them consider adding a cluster template so is says the article has multiple issues. This is a pretty redundant edit. If you are really concerned about lacking content or referencing please find it Thanks.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 12:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What would be very useful is if based on this you added population and area data to the Category:Municipalities of Colombia by department. I am in the middle of working through them adding initial infoboxes first and then formatting and adding pin maps after. You are welcome to help as the vast majority of them are unreferenced one line stubs. That would be a much greater help than just adding a tag. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you understand. Municipalities as in third-level administrative divisions are inherently notable. Please DO NOT keep plastering notability tags on such articles. I notice you tried to delete one of the Colombian stubs and got a resounding snowball keep.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
find me one wikipedia policy about "inherent notability". —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make you aware that you should not change citation styles in an article without first obtaining consensus on talk. Many editors intentionally avoid the use of citation templates, in favor of manual citation, because the citation templates are clunky and inconsistent. Please see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools; the cite templates that you added should be reverted to the manual citation format used in the article, but doing that during a busy mainpage day will probably be difficult now. If you are able to restore the original citations, that would be helpful. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:CITE only says you need a consensus if there is already a "distinctive citation format". that's not the case. there is a mix of footnotes and shortened footnotes, and there are plenty of inconsistencies about how volumes and issues should be noted and whether dois should be used or not. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 14:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Look closely enough
And there are few more hundred in the WP Indonesia like that - :( SatuSuro 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you as an editor of the Waterboarding page: when you type in John Kiriakou (CIA officer involved in waterboarding) the page redirects to Waterboarding. This isn't appropriate, and I don't know how to fix this. Given that Kiriakou's statements about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah now seem to be inaccurate he almost certainly needs his own page in any case. Thanks, and sorry to pick on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User20090423 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
see Help:Redirect. if you have enough reliable third-party sources to justify a separate article, just edit the page and create an article. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 04:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to have a look back there and see if you approve of how I am developing all this? It's a bit complicated because there have been several somewhat overlapping articles which I am trying to unravel into clearer categories. Thanks, Alarics (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You queried the book by the two Russian authors. I have it in my possession and bought it from the Amalienbourg Palace Museum bookshop in Copenhagen, Denmark. The book exists and is quite rare. It was produced with full authorisation from the Danish Royal Court. As for the ISBN number it is listed as contained in the publication. If you check wikipedia ISBN for Russia there is only one outlet. That in itself does not prove a book does not exist. In fact many books are still published without ISBN numbers in many different countries. Many early works were also published when no ISBN existed anywhere. The Russian publishers are very well known. They have published many books on different topics. In fact most of their publications are not available in western countries. FinneganwFinneganw 14:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Great! thanks for checking that. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Please note that I am working on referencing and indicating notability of this character by using some of the university press published studies that discuss this character at some length. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
great! it looks like i'll be able to retract my request for deletion. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy to read that! Thank you for keeping an open mind! And don't hesitate to ask if I can ever help with anything else. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace
To Chris Capoccia, for having the good grace to close an AfD when he was happy with the sourcing, a pleasant change from the at times adversarial conditions there. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I second Casliber's comments above. I also give you much kudos for helping fix the reference formats of the references I added. It is indeed refreshing to see a nominator also help work on the article under discussion. Have a fantastic day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Cleaning Up References section in Neanderthal Article
Hi, Chris. I am a new user/editor who has just stumbled across the Neanderthal article. I mainly work with California Indian group articles, but have loved prehistory studies all my life. I find the Neanderthal article dis-heartening, having read some of the discussion that shows a long (and perhaps losing) battle to maintain neutrality with regard to the "inter-breeding" question. As a beginning contribution, I would like to tackle a rather neutral problem that would help people more quickly understand just who is being cited in the overall article, and who is being left out. Currently the article has both "Notes" and "References" but most of the references are spread through the extensive notes. I would be willing to repeat all of them down in the "References" section in standard alphabetical order by author, without changing the "Notes" layout at all for now. However, Wikipedia rules say each article's reference history is supposed to be honored by new editors. What do you think? Should I expand the references by copying them from the notes? Or will I get clobbered for ignoring some ancient edit battle? I also posted to "TimidGuy", a long term editor, with this question.Middle Fork (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I would rather see the items in the References section be moved into footnotes so that it's more clear what part of the text they are supporting. Right now, it's more like "Further reading" than "References". But I don't have full access to many of the items listed, so I can't say what part of the article they go with. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 03:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Chris, I am very new as a Wikipedia editor and I am just learning about the rules and protocols. I am finding the Neanderthal article to have two huge problems. First, it is poorly structured, i.e. redundent. Second, two groups of scholars with very different opinions are using this article to make intellectual war on each other (which may be generating some of the redundency). I am not suggesting that footnotes, which tell you exactly which section "Tattersel 1997" is supporting, be eliminated. But I also want to be able to go to one place [References] and quickly see if all of the important "Tattersel" or "Torroni" or whatever authors and articles are even mentioned. It is the bibliography/references that immediately tell the expert whether or not an article is presenting all sides. It is impossible to absorb that kind of information from the incredibly long list of "annotated" footnotes in the present Neanderthal article. From the Wikipedia citations style guide:
Shortened footnotes are used for several reasons: they allow the editor to cite many different pages of the same source without having to copy the entire citation; they avoid the inevitable clutter when long citations are inserted into the source text; they bring together all the full citations into a coherent block of code (rather than being strewn throughout the text) which allows the list to be alphabetized and makes it easier to edit all the full citations at once (e.g. adding ISBN, DOI or other detail); and a single footnote can contain multiple citations, thus avoiding long rows of footnote markers.
Please think about this for a couple of days. Meanwhile, I have extracted every footnote from the article, and I am going to clean them up and build a "mock" bibliography for you and the other editors to take a look at next week. If I cannot build consensus for it, I will shrug and amble on. :-) Middle Fork (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
you can save yourself some trouble and just point to some other existing article that you want to mimic. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Chris, I just copied this entire discussion to the discussion page for Neanderthal, so that other Neanderthal editors can join the discussion. My response is over there.Middle Fork (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Translation only
Hi Chris, just to let you know your example of "translated title only" should now be covered; please see my reply on the template talk page. Crum375 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you have contributed to dendreon page.
However, after further consideration, I'm still debating
about reverting to a version prior to shubinator's
mass deletes, notably this,
and continiung clean up where I left off. Input welcome. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if your replies (if any) are at Nerdseeksblonde's talk to keep the discussion in one place. I mentioned one of your Dendreon edits in my last post. I also welcome an uninvolved editor. Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Recent deletions
Hello, Chris. I restored the formatting that easily identifies and separates references from text in edit mode on Medical analysis of circumcision, as well as the detailed quotes of the mediacl associations in the references that need to be there for neutrality purposes. If you have any questions, please bring them up on Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded for fixing the numerous and incorrectly formatted references at Tom Frieden. Good work. – Wervo (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits in 'Medical cannabis'
Hi Chris! You did a hell of work in fixing references, but we lost track. Would you please come over and have a look at the article's talk page? -- Alfie±Talk 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Medical cannabis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. hmwitht 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at the entire page history and I don't see any evidence that Chris Capoccia is involved in an edit war of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack removed
I have removed a comment you made which I believed was a personal attack. Please be aware that Wikipedia does not permit personal attacks, and they may be removed when they appear to be clear-cut. —Whig (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Asking people not to be jerks is most certainly not a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It appeared to me that he was calling the editor a jerk. In all caps, no less. I do not think this is a constructive way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Pleae read again for comprehension. He said, "don't be a jerk", not "you are a jerk", and for what it is worth, the anon IP was acting like a jerk. Chris did not make any personal attack, and the talk page is filled with personal attacks from User:The Pot Snob and the anonymous IP, both of which you ignored. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you see other clear-cut personal attacks which should be removed, you may do so according to WP:NPA. I am not going to parse language here. —Whig (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Practically every single talk page comment on the article and user talk pages by the anon and The Pot Snob involve a personal attack of some kind. Today TPS wrote, "How does an editor like myself or 72 compete against someone who is obviously paid to edit on Wikipedia all day long?" Nobody involved in this discussion is "paid to edit" Wikipedia. Please find me a comment from The Pot Snob or 72 that is not a personal attack of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should contact an admin if you wish to seek advice, or you could explore dispute resolution. —Whig (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any "dispute" with The Pot Snob or 72, so why would I seek out dispute resolution? You apparently think it is acceptable for single-purpose, advocacy accounts to disrupt talk pages with personal attacks, since you ignore the accounts making the attacks and accuse the victims of the attacks themselves. That's extremely odd behavior on your end, Whig. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion that you seek input from others, and you are free to ignore it. There is nothing more to discuss if you only wish to complain to me. —Whig (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And, I have made a suggestion that when you remove personal attacks, you remove actual personal attacks, especially from your so-called allies. The comment you removed was not a personal attack. I do not need to seek input from anyone but yourself on this matter. If this isn't making sense to you, you may feel free to seek input from anyone you desire. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chris - edit summaries
Would you consider always adding an edit summary when editing the Medical Cannabis page? Thanks. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Very grateful for your work on refs. Being low on the learning curve, I appreciate the feedback and guidance and will study this carefully. Alawa (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health
Thanks for fixing the citations in Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, but your fixes introduced other problems. In several cases, you lumped individual authors as "authors", instead of "first=" etc. That interferes with the "harv" cite refs. Is there a reason for doing so? Will Bebacktalk 20:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
not really, i was just using diberri's tool. it's easy to fix. just delete the author field and run citation bot. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have added Template:MEDRS to a large number of references at mathematical biology. There are serious problems with the sourcing at that article, and I have started to work on them, but these templates weren't appropriate. WP:MEDRS only applies to medical claims. Claims that a field is also known under a certain different name, or that it has applications in a certain area, hardly fall under its scope. This is true even in a primarily medical article, and even more clearly so in a biology article. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source if and when it is used to support a medical claim. HansAdler 10:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Citation bot removing abstract link
Hello! I don't know what citation bot you're using, but it has a bug. You just removed a link to an abstract on red blood cell (the Wingstrand paper). Somebody else had removed that same link earlier, probably also using some broken tool. I just re-added the link for the second time. I would appreciate it if you could alert whomever is responsible for this bot; fighting against broken bots is a nightmare. Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Page numbers were messed-up (especially some intervals were lost).
first=|last= is preferred over the more generic author= as it captures the data more (see Template:Cite journal). I don't understand why you replaced the metadata with a generic author=.
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have added a translation of the criticism to Talk:Platelet-rich plasma. Your comments there and/or in the Portuguese Wikipedia would be welcome. If you are not comfortable writing in Portuguese, you can use http://translate.google.com to translate any comments from English to Portuguese. - Eastmain (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dictionnaire des bâtiments
The Dictionnaire des bâtiments... is a dictionary. The page number is not needed, as information is available exactly as easily from alphabetical order than from the page number.
It is a self-published book, essentially because it has only a niche market. It is listed in the site of the historical service of the Ministry of Defence as a reputable source [1]. Rama (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
the chapter parameter should be completed with the entry name in the dictionary if no page number is needed. for French ship Souverain (1819), should someone look under F or S? Is there more than one entry that the correct one could be confused with? —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no chapter. It is a dictionary of ships of the French Navy, in French, so obviously the names of the ships do not begin with "French". In the case of Souverain, you look up at S, and find the correct entry by date and type. There is a sample of the dictionnary online at [2], you can see that it's easy to browse. It wouldn't occur to anyone to read such a book cover to cover, it's really meant as a reference where articles are quickly accessible. Rama (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
chapter is just the name of the parameter. using it for the entry name results in the same output as Template:Cite encyclopedia. for example,
Roche, Jean-Michel (2005). "ADRIENNE - Frégate de 46 canons (1809 - 1849)". Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours 1 1671 - 1870. Toulon: Roche. ISBN978-2-9525917-0-6. OCLC165892922.
Ah, OK, sorry. I though "chapter" as in a large section. There are some interesting addenda, but not relevant to the problem. I'll made efforts to comply to the standard that you mention. By the way, thank you for finding the ISBN, it is not mentioned in the book and I had been looking for it for some time.
Is the self-publication of the book a problem? Rama (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
self-publication is not necessarily a reason for exclusion (see WP:SPS), but it's a big red flag. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 11:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Waterboarding in the 21st century. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
because you also reverted to a version that had internal links as external links (see Wikipedia:Linking for a guideline on how to properly link) and had a broken footnote system (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidelines on citing sources). —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 05:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xenotalk 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Johanna Budwig
Someone is proposing that the English Johanna Budwig be deleted. You might wish to offer your opinion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries for Medicinal Mushrooms
Hello! Firstly, I'd like to thank you for helping to clean up the references and citations in the page Medicinal mushrooms -- it's a big undertaking, and you're doing a really fantastic job cleaning up the cite templates and deleting duplicate citations. Thank you! The bot/tool you've been working with also seems to do a really great job, which is excellent, as that article has SO many references, and many are not entirely well formatted.
I'm just wondering if you could try to use the edit summary when you make changes; the page has been a bit volatile as far as editing is concerned (mostly content and reference reliability disputes, which are being worked out on the talkpage) and just throwing in a two-word edit summary would be so so helpful. Thank you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 16:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Haplogroup F (Y-DNA)
I noticed you may have accidentally deleted some information bits like author names and article titles on this article. Can you please check?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You might have looked before I was finished using citation bot. There also appears to be a bug with the bot where it doesn't find pmc without pmid. Let me know if there is anything missing after you review this diff. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes it seems you were still busy with it. Quiet a job sometimes those bots. I tend to do this type of thing by hand. Anyway, I'll tell you if I see a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Citation templates
thanks for switching Caffeine to more specific templates. But why did you remove almost all of the bibliographic information from the citation in the process? Seems more important to have author/journal/etc info than just a better-formatted PMID. DMacks (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
citation bot took a while to run on such a large page... look again... i think everything's in order again. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahah yes! Thanks again for the cleanups, DMacks (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Haplogroup N1a
Hi Chris, can you explain to me the motivation for adjusting the citations listed on this page? The citation bot seems to have deleted information I put in there such as URL, ISSN, journal issue, and date of access. It's changed date to year in some cases, and it even incorrectly populated the information on the 2005 Haak article. Prior to your edits, I had followed the Wikipedia:Citation templates, so I'm unclear what I did that was in poor form. I do note that you added PMID in some cases, which I appreciate, but why didn't you simply make that addition and not run a citation bot? Thanks. iron0037contribs 16:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
accessdate corresponds to url, not doi or pmid, and i didn't think there was any point to having a url for the same place as doi or pmid. i was expecting the bot work properly and pick the correct title, journal name, issue and other bibliographic info from the doi or pmid. sometimes it doesn't, and i should have verified that. does issn help anyone if the doi or pmid is already present? my understanding was that issn was only helpful for journals without pmid or doi. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey Chris, thanks for the response. I agree that it's slightly redundant to have a URL when a doi is there. However, not every reader is going to know what a doi is, and they therefore might not click that link to the article. Thus I included both for completeness. I figure more information is better than less, thus I put ISSN and other information that I had access to. I'm also concerned that you changed the format for some but not all of the citations. Reference 18 for example still has a doi and a URL. The citation page says "editors should not...change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus." So if you don't mind, I'd like to revert to the old system since it's consistent. I will happily add PMIDs and dois that I was missing. Is that ok? iron0037 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
you should look at the url parameter instructions ate Template:Cite journal. URLs that point to the same place as DOIs or PMIDs shouldn't be used. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Review of article regarding Rashid Massumi
Hi Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to review and edit the article regarding Rashid Massumi. I found your changes helpful. Can you please let me know what exactly I'll need to do to remove the "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification" box at the top? Is it a matter of fixing the following items (which I will correct in short order)?
The "Citation not given" note in the heading,
The "not in citation given" note for footnote 5?
The "self-published source" / "unreliable source" notes in footnotes 3 and 9?
Thank you.
PPM Peter (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)PPM Peter
actually, I added the box at the top because there are several paragraphs without any references at all. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Medicinal mushroom cites
I see you've been hard at work cleaning up cites, thank you. Please, though, don't change article titles to insert excess capitalization. Title case is fine for journal names, but we use sentence case for article and contribution titles. With rare exceptions (usually transient or obscure) this is the way PubMed presents the article titles. LeadSongDogcome howl! 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
you don't care how the actual title was capitalized by the publisher? —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
i'm using citation bot one section at a time in my sandbox, but the bot does different things depending on if you start with pmid or doi. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That sounds plausible. It's probably going to Pubmed's database if given a pmid, and to Crossref's database if given a doi. I'll leave a note at the bot's talkpage. LeadSongDogcome howl! 05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Long non-coding RNA page
Hi. The references in the long non-coding RNA page are not currently in the standard format. Rjwilmsi can fix this with a bot (see User_talk:Rjwilmsi#Long_non-coding_RNA_page). As a main contributor to this article, would you agree to this change? Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
commented at Rjwilmsi's talk. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, and I was just wondering what you meant by tagging that additional sources or references are needed for the Susan Smalley article? It seems to me that there are plenty of third-party sources referenced on the page, but as you are the one who flagged it, I wanted to check with you first before removing the alert. Thanks!--Smalleywall (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
two main problems (maybe 3).
there are a lot of unreferenced statements. not allowed in a biography of a living person. see WP:BLP.
there are a lot of references written by the subject of the article. also not allowed. see WP:ABOUTSELF.
are you susan smalley? or closely connected with susan smalley? just asking because your username looks similar. if you are, you need to follow WP:AVOIDCOI.
you're welcome (yes, my talk page is the right place). glad i could help. most of my edits lately have been cleanup. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 00:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
citationbot is broken right now :( i might have to expand those refs by hand. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
citationbot is working again! i've expanded the refs. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Much better. :) I'm getting better at using the various citation tools, so I should be able to leave cleaner references, in the future. Thanks! Deuterostome (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Reference formatting
Chris,
Can you tell me why you keep deleting most of the contents of the citations, e.g., here? Citations are supposed to be written out in full, not reduced to a doi number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
i am also forcing citation bot to run. so those edits are also part of my changes. i think you can see a general improvement in formatting and consistency in this diff. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought {{cite doi}} already resulted in automatic completion of the citation. I too am confused by your actions. pgr94 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
if the whole article consistently used cite doi, i would have left everything that way. as it was, it was a mix of bare urls, different abbreviations and different formats. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with the two above editors, having noticed this edit. It's strange behaviour when the references are already full {{cite journal}} templates. You caught one stray external link but it's not necessary to strip every reference down to a doi and run a bot to fill them out again. It's now very difficult for me to check your changes without analysing every reference in detail. I third the request for you to stop doing this. Thanks Jebus989✰ 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
the problem is not so much my edits (completing full names, journal titles, standardizing on pmid and doi instead of urls, etc.) as it is the piece of junk diff system on wikipedia that can't even reasonably manage simply adding/removing an empty line. i do not have a history of vandalizing pages and citation bot is an approved bot for harmonizing and standardizing citation formats, so i fail to see what the problem is. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not calling you a vandal, you're just making a mess in the edit history without achieving anything (except perhaps expanding a straightforward author list into one formatted with |first2 |last2 ... ). I explained the problem, if I'm monitoring an article and trying to track your changes it becomes impossible when you've nearly wiped every reference on the page. If you see a missing field and just can't bear to leave it empty, by all means fill it in, or better yet use AWB to do it. I guess if you're not listening to the two three above complaints you won't be listening to mine either. Jebus989✰ 22:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually your talk page archives is full of complaints, and you're being unreasonably persistent Jebus989✰ 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I also find replacing citations templates that are formatted in the Vancouver system (single author parameter) with the much more bulky (and ugly) "first1, last1, ..." as in this series of edits annoying. With the compact Vancouver style, it is challenging enough to locate and edit prose in the raw wiki markup. With the addition of of "first1, last1, ...", parameters, the prose becomes completely overwhelmed by imbedded citation templates. If you insist on including "first1, last1, ..." parameters, I think it would be a much better idea to use transcluded special purpose citation templates (e.g., use {{cite pmid}} instead of {{cite journal}} and let the citation bot create transcluded templates, see for example this edit). The resulting wiki markup is much easier to read and therefore edit. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
this may work well for shorter articles, but in longer ones, you cannot use {{cite pmid}} for every ref because there will be too many transclusions. of course there are other problems in other sorts of articles, like journals not using pmid or wanting to specify urls. if you want to work on best practice guidelines for references in articles like PTPN22, i'm sure the place to start a discussion is Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology or even some higher level project page and not on my talk. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 10:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is already a best practice guideline for references, namely WP:CITEVAR, which recommends "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". Concerning PTPN22, the first major contributor was User:ProteinBoxBot that established a Vancouver formatting style that was maintained for almost 4 years and eventually included 25 citations that conformed to the original formatting style. Subsequently 4 additional citations were added that only provided a pmid. All 29 citations were then converted to a different style overwriting the previously established formatting standard for this article. This is contrary to the recommendation of WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that User:Citation bot tries to follow the CITEVAR convention. It will add parameters to an existing template preserving the formatting style. It will only establish a new default style if no previous style existed. Stripping away the previously established style by removing all parameters except the pmid circumvents the way the bot was originally intended to function. Boghog (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chris. I am reasonably new to Wiki.
In working on the MADD page, and I notice you edited it earlier this month. Thanks! Would you mind giving me a bit of feedback on the MADD Talk page as to what areas need more citations, and if anything isn't clear (or is really muddy), and what should be expanded on. I am not real good at citations yet, but am working on learning.. sorry. I hope to have time to continue research and expand the piece quite a bit in the next months.
Thanks, Tom User Talk:67.189.56.3 ?? —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
Sure. There's a whole section that doesn't have any references, and I flagged each of the other individual statements that need citations. I can help with formatting if that's giving you trouble. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 13:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris
I see your notes regarding citations, and should be able to find something for that section too, though I don't have a good biology background. If you could help with formatting, that would be terrific. One more question - should I try to find places that the existing citations would work for two different areas, or would new citations be better?
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.56.3 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
you don't need to find new citations if an existing one can be used again. You can reuse a citation by name. First time as <ref name=mynamedref>some text</ref> and subsequent times as <ref name=mynamedref/>. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 14:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chris
I found two very similar photos... Either one could be used to help understand the structure of AMP. I know they are similar to the photo that Arcadian put in, but they add the names of each section. Both are on ChemWiki, which is non-copyrighted. Could you please upload one of them into the "CAUSES" section of Myoadenylate Deaminase Deficiency.
actually, these are copyrighted [3], and the non-commercial requirement in the terms is incompatible with wikimedia's requirements [4] —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris.
Sorry that I didn't realize the copyrights were different. I will ask a professor friend if he can draw it up for me.
Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.56.3 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
the bot you are using makes double citations: if you copy-paste the same reference in 2 different places, it gives 2 references, thus unnecessarily inflating the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
i'm not seeing what you're talking about. which page has this problem? —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 12:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time today, but I'll try to look at it some time. The citation bot only works in English, but I think the citations could be set up manually using fr:Modèle:Article. I don't speak French, so hopefully I don't mess anything up. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. OldManPants 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A lot of claims in that article are based upon internal claims at wikipedia. You did not tag any of the claims with {{fact}}. Could you be more specific?
WP:LINKSTOAVOID #9: "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit Summaries Should be Compulsory
It would be a good idea for you to set the flag on your preferences to remind you that you have not written an edit summary. Edit summaries are a good way to avoid edit wars, because in them you can refer people to the relevant policy (or guideline) that you are enforcing. Even reversions of obvious vandalism should contain more than "rv". It's also a good practice to maintain in writing essays, because your paragraphs and essays should start and end with a point. Wikipedia frowns on articles with points, I know, and points are good ideas in edit summaries. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Yerba mate does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Changing references
Hi Chris, you've been asked many times, per WP:CITEVAR, to stop adding citation templates to articles that already use a recognized style. This is the latest example I've seen. If it continues, I'm going to consider starting dispute resolution, though I hope that won't be necessary as we both have better things to do around here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
lol... really? there's no way speciesism had any kind of established style. or that adding DOIs, ISBNs and chapter links made things worse. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 21:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The style is obvious -- shortened refs in footnotes, full citations in a References section, no templates. ISBNs are not helpful because they point only to one edition, and you did not check which edition was used as a source before adding the ISBNs. You can add DOIs if you want, but they don't add any information, and as you know there's no need to convert the whole citation to a template to do that.
The templates add clutter and slow down load time, and there are editors who care about that, so it's just a question of being respectful toward people who have chosen not to use them. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
that glosses over all the inconsistencies like where the brackets go, how the volume and issues are noted, whether the date goes at the beginning or towards the end, whether the note includes a URL or only the references or both, whether page numbers are specified for books or not... and i did check which edition matched with the ISBN via online libraries like worldcat, amazon and google. are there any i got wrong? do you have any evidence for your idea that templates slow down load times? i tried to look through the links you cite on your home like Israel, but when i checked the load time at the bottom of the html, it says 0.402 seconds. so whatever problem existed at one point is no longer an issue. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 23:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
How did you manage to compare the page numbers/ISBNs for the books that aren't online?
Chris, the point is that if you want to change CITEVAR, you should propose a change at WT:CITE. But as it stands the edits you make often violate it. As for load times, it has been long established that these templates cause a slow down, to the point where articles with lots of templates almost can't be edited. It just took 32 seconds for me to load Israel and I'm on a relatively new computer. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet another CITEVAR violation
In Voltage-dependent anion channel, the citation style was established by the article's creator in 2007 and maintained until this year. Before August 2012, there were seven consistently formatted citations. Two additional citations were then added with "first, last, coauthor" parameters. All nine citations were then reformatted with "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters. The solution is to reformat the last two added citations so that they are consistent with the first seven citations, not to reformat all nine citations in a new style. As a reminder:
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference.
Please stop. Boghog (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
and what is the problem on this article? it's already using citation templates, except not very well. if you want to be the manager of thousands of articles, at least manage them well. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 12:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Approximately 5 out of 25 citations needed to be cleaned up. The solution is to fix the 5 citations, not reformat all 25 in a new style. Why is it necessary to introduce verbose "first1, last1" parameters? There are approximately ~10,000 Gene Wiki articles. I think I have done a fairly good job of maintaining these articles since they were created, but there are times when I am busy in real life and I have missed things. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop removing URLs from references in Bicycle helmet
Hello, I'm Tim.churches. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bicycle helmet because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop removing URLs from references. They are there for a purpose, to allow readers to easily access the full paper, and/or the full abstract for each reference. In some cases you have removed the entire reference except for the PMID. —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
not sure what you think is non-constructive about these edits. Or are you talking about different ones? diff at Bicycle helmet —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 22:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
considering these deletions were in conjunction with edits by Citation bot that re-filled the citation and the preference for DOIs in WP:SOURCELINKS & WP:DEADREF, I'm not sure why you think these are vandalism or why you think characterizing them as "deleting the entire reference" is fair. diff for Bicycle helmets in New Zealand —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 22:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, the cite journal template builds links for the articles based on their DOI, which in many ways is preferable to having static links to the publisher's web site. No information is being removed as far as I can tell, and the resulting references look nicer. a13ean (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The vast majority of citations in the gamma-aminobutyric acid had a consistent format. There were just a handful that needed to be reformatted (mainly a few {{cite pmid}} templates that should not have been included in the first place). Why are you creating all this unnecessary work for yourself? Boghog (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
instead of just reverting me, you could look at the diff and see that there are actually quite a lot of improvements that you just wiped out in your quest to use only diberri formatting. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
and you keep using citevar in your edit summaries, but it doesn't really apply because what i'm doing fits very nicely inside of the exceptions for "generally considered helpful." —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I have now incorporated most of your other improvements. For a few of the citations it is debatable whether these are journal articles or book chapters. These books effectively have become journals because they have volume and issue numbers. Finally according to citevar, "switching between major citation styles" is to be avoided. Boghog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
yes, but the examples for "major citation styles" are "switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another". which academic disciplines prefer diberri? —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The biomedical discipline frequently uses the Vancouver System and diberri at least with respect to author format, follows this system. Also citrevar absolutely applies to this situation:
"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, ... "
Since consensus was not first established for changing the citation style in this article, your edit clearly contravenes citevar. Most of the citations in this article were perfectly well formatted. The solution is to reformat the outliers to match the established style, not reformat all citation in a new style. Furthermore this solution requires less work. Boghog (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
well, at least when i look at the references printed in the various sources cited in this article, every publisher does them their own way and a little bit different from each other. so i'm not sure what exactly you mean by "vancouver" since everyone is doing it differently, unless vancouver is an umbrella term for various somewhat similar styles. some leave out the article title, some put the year at the end, some use commas to separate last names, first initials and titles like jr., some italicize journal titles, some include identifiers like doi, some include issue numbers. all of it seems to be an attempt to save space in printed material, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, a predominate style had been established and reestablished that was gradually degraded over time (addition of 5 transcluded {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates, 4 citations that used the deprecated coauthor parameter, etc.). Even after this degradation, a clear majority of the citations were still consistently formatted. Boghog (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Messing up references
Why did you made this edit in May that completely messed up the references? SilverserenC 05:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
i think you're confused. i made that particular edit as part of a series of edits in conjunction with Citation bot that did not "completely mess up" anything. see this diff. i removed URLs that were redundant because of object identifiers like DOIs (also to comply with WP:COPYLINK). i improved the author listing. i changed quote marks and apostrophes to straight quotes per MOS:PUNCT & MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I added URIs to references that didn't have them like Kalleberg 1977. —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 10:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK says absolutely nothing about not including URLs with DOIs. Furthermore, your "improvements" removed all of the wikilinks to the journals and publishers. If all you wanted to do was change quote marks and such, you could have just done that directly. SilverserenC 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
i clearly wanted to do more than just change quote marks, i wanted the bot to validate the correctness of the citations from the crossref database. i've seen more than enough pages with mistyped information in the references. you're right, copylink says nothing about authorized pages from the publisher. but what's the point of a url that goes to the same place as the doi or pmid? and what is the benefit from the econbiz.de link? —Chris CapocciaT⁄C 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Han Chinese 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:
"nrdd">{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/drugdisc/nj/articles/nrd1811.html |title=David T. Wong] |work=Nature Reviews Drug Discovery |year=2011}}</ref><ref name="spu">{{cite web |title=The Faith
10:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Medical cannabis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. hmwitht 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Yerba mate does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tim C (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)