User talk:Chris Capoccia

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)

refs

as far as i can see the AJCP refs are rendered useless by removing text - please explain.... JarrahTree 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

easy enough to read a diff and see the improvement. not clear what's so difficult  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

the diff I saw no replacement of text - just bare bones... maybe reading in between... ah I see - the time delay between back to bare bones and waiting - that must be tedious for you - the difficulty is checking an edit and the following one - cheers JarrahTree 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove content or references without an explanatory edit summary

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Extinction risk from global warming, you may be blocked from editing. Your intentions may be noble, but deleting hundreds or thousands of characters of text without explanation is disruptive regardless, and you have already been contacted about this sort of thing by other editors on multiple occasions: [1] [2] [3]. I hope you will take this message on board, instead of ignoring it as you did with the previous requests. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

so if i just add "prepping for cleanup with Citation bot", you're cool? —Chris Capoccia (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is actually the purpose of the edit, then yes. If in doubt, follow WP:ES. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Methylphenidate. Zazpot (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

lol "blank a page" :D show me a diff that is blank —Chris Capoccia (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

blank a page is not what I said. "remove or blank page content or templates" is what I said. Zazpot (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

and if you look at the diff for Methylphenidate, you'll see it's not that either. —Chris Capoccia (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what constitutes removal. Look at your edit history. See the column that contains red and green items, where each item is a parenthesis containing either a plus or minus sign and an integer, or a zero? That column shows the net character gain (for green and plus) or loss (for red and minus) resulting from the edit. Short of a bug in the underlying software, it is impossible for an edit to result in a negative number in that column without the edit involving removal of material from the page. So, even if the edit also involves replacing the removed content with something shorter, that is still a net removal.

Such removals should all have explanatory edit summaries. Yours do not have them. This is disruptive for other editors. Hence my messages here. Zazpot (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

lol. WP:ES only says, "It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field" not that failure to complete edit summaries will result in blocking. you should stop trying to own wikis. —Chris Capoccia (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removing single quotes from citation title parameter

Hello. At Christian Benítez, single quotes surrounding a title which was a direct quotation, aand which were present on the original cited webpage, were removed using CitationBot. I can't find anything in CS1 documentation to support such removal, and was wondering if it was a mistake? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bach cantata recordings

The best, most detailed information is on Bach Cantatas Website. We use the site mainly for recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

it's self-published source and the URL got stripped so how can you cite to that?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-published or not, it's the best information around. Recordings are recordings, and here you get exact information about instrumentalists in the orchestra, date and place of recording, etc. We'd do our readers no favour if we didn't make that information available. I am sorry, I made a mistake not removing the ref tags when moving the entry to External links. Btw, - references like that have passed the source check of featured articles, example BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)