Jump to content

User talk:Chris Capoccia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jhoughton1 (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 12 June 2020 (→‎Looks like I've got some homework to do). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and citation bot

Are you going to continue until the category is empty? I was quite enjoying the ride! :-) Nemo 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trying to… we'll see how long it lasts before the next time someone shuts down citation bot.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs at 24k and Category:Pages with citations lacking titles at 31k... I'm curious where they end up! Nemo 19:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
most of the rest of "Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL" are using templates like cite map that are not supported by citation bot. many of "Pages with citations having bare URLs" and "Pages with citations lacking titles" are actually broken links that citation bot cannot fix.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can identify the titles most likely to be edited successfully with some regex search? Then you could submit them for citation bot processing without the category method, which is quite intensive. Nemo 06:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
also there are confusing cases like Calau, where the actual mistake is not in that page but in Template:Infobox German location, and that template transcludes other data, so doubtful that any normal person could figure out how to fix the error.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 19:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in this edit you added the title "Log in or register to view" in Dutch. That's not helpful! Might you have a way to check for any similar instances, e.g. Facebook domain? That title alone "Aanmelden of registreren om te bekijken" is currently found on 17 pages. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again; for the record, I looked into the other instances of that text, and they were all left by Citation bot (I didn't check whether all of the edit summaries also mentioned you). The bot had been fixed,[1] but its past edits had not been; I have fixed those now. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that title is now on the bad data list. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone therapy

Thanks Chris for doing all that hard work of getting those citations into order! I was feeling sick at the thought of doing all that legwork myself! Much appreciated ! Fuzzypeg★ 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Fixer

Thank you so much for fixing these amount of references, hopefully this will be GA sooner or not, at least it the ref looks good now. 47.187.215.98 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing urls to cited texts?

Hello, I noticed you removed links to the full text of some citations in the Long-term_effects_of_cannabis article. Could you explain your reasoning behind it?--TZubiri (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyright???  — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed links to texts that were openly hosted by the publishers, there is no copyright claim. When in doubt you can adhere to DMCA, and only act upon takedown requests from copyright holders. I'm reverting the edit, please be more careful next time, we need to work towards citations beeing more accessible, otherwise we are asking users to blindly trust blue reference numbers in between brackets. --TZubiri (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know exactly which URL you are talking about. there were also a lot of redundant URLs that are exactly the same place as the DOI or PMC or whatever.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so by adding a doi, a link is automagically generated. It appears that you split your removal into two edits, I only reverted the second edit, which coincidentally was the one that removed my citation, so right now the link to the pdf is still there, which is a good thing in my estimation, simpler, less magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&diff=959372438&oldid=958920950

--TZubiri (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best link is still PMC which is automatically put into the title of the article when present. Whenever there is PMC, the URL should be blank. So it's just stupid linking to PNAS pdf when there is also PMC.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's great, but the PMC link redirects to a version of the article hosted by ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. I don't know what the relationship between the nih and the article is, but the link I provided comes straight from the publisher as far as I can tell. NIH seems like an unecessary link in the chain. Sure it might be great as an aggregator and it might provide links for material that would otherwise remain unlinked to wikipedia, but going straight to the source is better right? --TZubiri (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's how WP:CS1 works  — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got some homework to do

re: History of Baseball in the United States. I see you wrote out a couple of references in "Wikipedia longhand." Great, I assume that's necessary. Though a simple link seems to get the reader to the same place, there must be a reason for breaking down some citations into their component labels -- first name, last name, etc.

My original intent was to merely copy edit, but I realized without some more citations, the article might get bonged and all my copy editing would be for nothing, so I started looking for links to either confirm a given statement of fact or add content that didn't need to be brought into the article but that augmented the text. Fine. I'll learn when to {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) and when to add a simple link. I hope.

Your edit in the heading "The Science of the Sport Changes the Game" is one such, where you left one link untouched and turned the other into a lengthier citation. However, there is now an error message I don't understand: "Cite error: A [1] (see the help page)." Fact is, the </ref> seems to be right where it belongs. Just curious -- how were you alerted to those two references, deep inside this article? They can't possibly be the only two I got wrong!

I'm a newbie, Chris, and as such will probably be a bit of a pest for a while. Thanks for any feedback you can give me. Cheers, Jim Houghton

  1. ^ tag is missing the closing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_Capoccia&oldid=962231286"