User talk:Chris Capoccia

Refs

Ref tool

There is a request for consistent capitalization of article titles here. Wondering if you know of an automated way to do this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. i commented on the copd talk page.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I like having the url for the books go right to the page the content is on. Additionally if it is a single page that supports the content I typically just state that one. Reverted a couple of your changes. Not sure if you changed any others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally Chris can you use the same ordering of sections for references as this tool uses. It is what I always use and makes it easier for me to follow. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Extraversion and introversion

Hello, I'm Petrb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Extraversion and introversion, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Petrb (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

you're going to have to be more specific about what specifically was 'non-constructive'. it all seemed fine to me.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Extraversion and introversion

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Extraversion and introversion with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Petrb (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

please explain what is 'nonconstructive' about adding page numbers?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore both please. This is just a bug in software I am working on. Petrb (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

Hi there. Thanks for contributing to List of vegetable oils. I'm always happy to see contributions. Unfortunately, mixed among the fixes, it appears that you've added some errors, including to references 22, 93 and 95, where it looks like you've deleted most of content of the reference, leaving only the doi or pmid. In a number of other references, it looks like you've deleted the url and accessdate entries. Is there a reason for these deletions? Finally, I notice that you've removed page ranges in many cases, leaving only the first page of the range. Again, is there a reason for the deletion? Waitak (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

i went back and tried to add back more info. citation bot didn't fill everything out the way i expected and then i had to go out. some links were to the same place as the doi or pmid. is there really a point to leaving a link that could go bad when the resource identifier is more persistent and goes to the same place?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. If there's already a link in the citation, there's no need to add another. I'll go over it again later today and see if there are any other glitches. Thanks again for chipping in. Waitak (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fish oil

Hi Chris. Would you please check when you are replacing links with dois or pmids that the links you are replacing are not to pdfs or the full text of the article. I always provide complete article links when I can locate them. In the fish oil article the effect of your edits was to replace five pdfs and three full article views with abstracts. It can be a lot of work sometimes tracking down complete articles, and it is disheartening to see the work wasted like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYLINK: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The links were generally legitimate. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Authors are often allowed to host their own papers on their own website and others are allowed to link to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Refs

I do not see the point of these edits thus reverted. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marriage and health

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marriage and health you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the top contributors to marriage and health since the original nominator is no longer active. Feel free to participate in the process or just ignore/delete this message. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)