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 .

Thank you for all of your help! I just have a couple of questions.

Hi Chris, I have been working on the Bioelectricity Wikipedia page with my colleagues and I really appreciate all the help that you have provided us in making the page more suitable for Wikipedia. We have put in citations in all the places that citations have been requested and also responded to the suggestion to merge with Biomagnetics (which we do not agree with and put our statement in the appropriate talk page a couple of weeks ago). I am wondering if you'd be willing to remove the two tags on the top of the page that indicate the need for the citations (which we have put in) and the suggestion for the merge (which we don't agree with and no one else has added to the conversation)? I really appreciate your help with our efforts to make the field of Bioelectricity more available for the general public to learn about and to hopefully enrich and inspire lives through learning.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Tiadeeharrison (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2018 (EST)

August 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Tornado chaser (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milk allergy article

When I brought the Milk allergy article up to Good Article, the review asked that the formatting for the references be consistent. You partially deleted five, forcing a bot to repair those, using a different format. I have restored the consistent format. Please do not do any more reference reformatting on this article. To quote an earlier Talk page entry: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference." David notMD (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A requirement for Featured Articles and also sometime Good Articles is consistent citation formatting. One of the advantages of |vauthors= is that it enforces a consistent format for first authors where as |first= enforces none. Chaining the citation format of a Good or Featured Article without obtaining consensus is especially problematic. Boghog (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were first/last formats in the article before my edit. See reference named Caffarelli or Nanagas. Reference named BerniCananiPezzella2016 had a URL instead of using the PMC link and had incorrect pages. Reference named ShahSerajuddin2017 was missing volume, issue & pages. diff —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before your first edit, 60 citations used |vauthors= and only 3 used |firstn=\|lastn= pairs. Clearly the Vancouver style was the predominate style before your first edit. In this diff, |vauthors= in 7 citations (VenterBrown2017, KoletzkoNiggemann2012, HeineAlRefaee2017, Feuille2015, Heyman2006, BerniCananiPezzella2016, Taylor2015) were replaced with |firstn=\|lastn= pairs. Why did you strip |vauthors= from these citations? Citation bot could have made all the other fixes you mention without touching the author parameters. Boghog (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please use edit summaries to explain what you're doing. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm INeedSupport. I noticed that you recently removed content from Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus 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. I know you're a great contributor to Wikipedia, but having edit summaries would let people know why you decides to edit it. Without it, some people may see your edits as vandalism. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

because you're a moron and i was in the middle of editing —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent editors use edit summaries. Boghog (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split Economic_inequality

Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.

Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month.

Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	For improvements and fixes to the citations on Long Range Reconnaissance Imager. Fotaun (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]