User talk:Chris Capoccia

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag removal

Hi, Chris. It looks like you've been systematically removing citation improvement tags (page needed, nonspecific, etc) while formatting refs without these improvements having being made. If it's deliberate, please stop. If not, please be more careful. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

not sure which edit or citation you're talking about. if it's Bakht's doi:10.2202/1554-4419.1022, it doesn't have page numbers.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You've just deleted a verification failed tag with this edit a few minutes ago. Have you verified the source? Two nonspecific tags were gone here with no further specification made. As to the Bakht paper, the publicly available copy is paginated, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a page in a 26-page paper. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Bakht has pages but not page numbers. Click the cite/export link on the publisher's page, and even the publisher cites their own article without page numbers. For Coulson, the citation now has a chapter with pages that seemed like they verified when I read it. What did you think?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not there are page number in an official version is tangential to the purpose of these tags. Their purpose is to ask for improving the citation so that it can be verified without having to browse through many pages of text. If there are no page numbers, the same request can be met by specifying a section or providing a quote. The overwhelming majority of statements can be, should be, and are supported by citing a single page or a similarly specific location. We're here to improve the WP, including by making it easier to verify, correct? Removing these tags seems to do the opposite of that. Eperoton (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chris Capoccia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Open access

Hi. When you made the automated changes to Systematic review did you spot that you had removed the open access template from the PRISMA reference? These templates sit within the reference bracket after the citation template to allow them to display alongside the details in the reference section. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

i've added them back for all the articles with PMC, but it seems redundant as cite journal already automatically adds the green unlock for pmc.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There is some overlap, but as far as I know the PMC template green unlock icon indicates free access, rather than indicating whether the item is one of PMC's one million open access articles. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

PMID 24843434

Hi, in this edit you added PMID 24843434 to three different citations, it wasn't the correct PMID for any of them. I've now removed it. What happened? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for fixing. I really don't remember what I was doing. It was clearly incorrect. these articles don't have a PMID. I fixed the page numbers just now to match the DOI records.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Destructive Edits

What happened here (and here and here &c.)? This edit decimated several citations, losing valuable information, and the subsequent lossy reconstructions by bots have made them quite time-consuming to repair.

chocolateboy (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

not clear on your use of "destructive"… most of them have to be compared as more than one action like this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klebsiella_pneumonia&type=revision&diff=761891523&oldid=760470400   —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

These edits are discarding:

• publication dates
• access dates
• page numbers
• publishers
• URLs
• quotes
• and corrections

The bots are provided to expand stubs and other inadequate and incomplete references, not to "fix" citations which have already been compiled and corrected manually, often painstakingly.

chocolateboy (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data. from Template:Cite_journal#Publisher, publisher is not normally used. also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---

the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data

It ought to be clear from the truncated dates (2002 vs January 2002) that the PubMed data is a subset of what can be gleaned from the original publications. In this case, the linked article also includes the author's full name. I fail to see how the article is improved by snipping these details.

publisher is not normally used

also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID

It says the access date is "not necessary", rather than "not used" in this case, but fine. That's at most 2/7 defensible deletions.

My biggest concern here is the removal of the quote, which turned a sourced statement ("in extremely rare cases") into what looks like an unsourced POV. Eventually, without the quote for context, it would have been flagged with {{citation needed}} and removed. And once citations are mangled in this way, I doubt most editors even notice, let alone have the time, energy or patience to go back and repair them.

chocolateboy (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)