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)

Expanding OAbot usage

Hello, thank you for your continued contributions with the OAbot tool! You might have noticed that we are now refreshing the queue more often, but there are many edits left to do so we always need more users. As a developer of the tool I'm kinda biased, so I was thinking whether you could recommend the tool to some other users: I think a simple user talk page message would do a lot! Possible interested users might include the most active editors in the month, I think. Nemo 14:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad edit. Please fix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nucleoside_triphosphate&diff=956460226&oldid=956460161 --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

not a "bad edit". i was prepping for cleanup with citation bot. you need to look at the diff for multiple edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nucleoside_triphosphate&type=revision&diff=956460332&oldid=952369098   — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this continued cleanup work! Nemo 14:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what's good about that edit deleting the authors and title of the cited work? I now see that the citation bot put 'em back. My mistake. I saw several of these destructive-seeming edits, and don't see the point. I guess I missed the work of the citation bot there too? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the deletion of sundry URLs from citations - containing academic.oup, marinemammal, biology.leeds, archive, arizona, cornell, sekj etc. I don't see that a citation bot has put them back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lek_mating&type=revision&diff=1020106470&oldid=1018475636 And there's no edit summary. Again, please use the edit summary box. Appropriately.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

URLs that go to the same place as the DOI are redundant and should be eliminated. There is also parameter doi-access=free for when the DOI takes you to full access that provides the link for the title or pmc parameter. populating URL with a redundant link prevents linking by parameter and can result in link rot.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As I explained at greater length before, with an example, eliminating URLs makes citations brittle. Again, please stop eliminating them. Can you expand on your last sentence? I don't understand. And again, can you please use the edit summary box?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

lol citation needed? Digital object identifier is way more stable than URL. Is there a recognized citation style that prefers URL over DOI? https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/internet_references/urls_vs_dois.html   — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"prevents linking by parameter"? CN.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

if the DOI is provides free access to full article, you can add parameter doi-access=free and it will link the title. if you want to force the title link even when DOI does not provide free access to full article, you can add parameter title-link=doi. see HELP:CS1.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I get the gist. But please respond to this:

I didn't say don't add DOIs. I said DON'T remove URLs like you did. Again, eliminating URLs makes citations brittle. See: Citation given already at Teahouse. FS. (And I strongly urged you to retract your accusation that the 14 URLs you removed, mostly to academic institutions, and likely mostly authorized or fair use, are all copyvio links. But I see you didn't.) And again, can you please use the edit summary box?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Keeping you informed

Greetings,

I had initiated a very very slow process multi round discussion @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

Keeping you informed since came across your user name in contribution stats of the article Apostasy in Islam

Join in discussion if you find yourself interested in. Also pl. do ignore it if it has been cross posted by mistake owing to long gap between communications on the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please leave edit summaries on your edits. For example, in your recent edits to Mersenne number, I had to look through the edits carefully to verify that you were not some vandal simply deleting text. — Anita5192 (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

so vandals leaving clever summaries get a free pass and you don't look at the diff?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have looked anyway, but I can usually understand the edit faster if the user explains what it was for.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Acne does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision diffs
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Renat 17:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary reminder

Hello. I have noticed that you Capoccia often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)