User talk:Chris Capoccia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

start here? Template:Harvard citation —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies on Jews

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google books template

Adding specialized templates such as the Google books one makes translation more complicated and thus I have restored the prior version.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

you should really look at the whole series of 7 edits including intermediate bot edits [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]