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 .

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country is at AFD

I am contacting everyone who did any significant amount of work on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country to inform them the article is now at deletion discussion at [1]. Dream Focus 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloroplast references

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

I was wondering the same thing. I reverted it, by the way, as I always do when a lot of content is removed without an edit summary. Cathfolant (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a summary would have been helpful... just trying to use citation bot to harmonize the journal citations. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to refs on cancer and nausea

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

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

Cite doi

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

Ref style

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

You have been requested not to make these changes a number of times before. If you continue you may lose your ability to edit. Sorry to come down hard like this but continuing as you are is disruptive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol… what on earth are you talking about? you can't possibly think that that article had any kind of consistent ref style that i could have been messing up! the refs were done in all kinds of different ways. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False. In the osteoarthritis article before your changes:

total cite templates – 75
- inline:
  - cite journal tempates – 61
  - cite web templates – 4
  - cite book – 2
- transcluded:
  - cite pmid + cite journal – 7
of which:
- single or no author parameter – 42
- first, last, coauthor – 21
- first1, last1, first2, last2 – 8
- cite pmid + cite journal – 7

A single author parameter is the most concise followed by first, last, coauthor which is also fairly concise. Combined, these two citation styles represented 39+21=60 of the total citations. The verbose first1, last1, first2, last2, ... represent the remainder. The "first, last, coauthor" is becoming more common because that is what the ref tool bar supports and diberri is down (although I am trying to fix that). What you have done is to replace all the references of which a clear majority where more compact with a style that was in a clear minority (15 out of 75). You really need to gain consensus before making these types of changes. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]