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)

Thanks

Thanks Chris for all your great editing for wiki.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

When it's one author

Hi, Chris Capoccia. I saw this[1]. So when it's one author, "last1" and "first1" should also be used? Or is this done for uniformity? I thought when it's just one author, "last" and "first" are the default. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

i'm not writing these entries by hand. for the book, using the Wikipedia:RefToolbar to fill in from the Google URL. For journal articles, mostly from DOI.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it. But then I guess that means the tools are starting off with "last1" and "first1." I'd alter it when it's one author. GBFEE (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

All the content was deleted

Hi Chris, I was working on editing Suresh Canagarajah's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suresh_Canagarajah. And I've noticed that you removed all the content I uploaded. So, I was wondering if there's anything wrong with it and anything I need to do to prevent this.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSU-ASC (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

i don't know what you're talking about. it wasn't me. review the history of the page and you'll see it was someone else.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For chapters

I added a citation, "Sex-Based Differences in Lung Physiology", where I want it to focus on the chapter.[2]. Will you show me the appropriate way to do that? I feel I didn't do everything right. GBFEE (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

pretty good, although i think you wanted the chapter-url parameter instead of url. also you can have citation bot build the whole citation from DOI like this diff.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. GBFEE (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

Dear Chris Capoccia. Thanks for your attention to the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. You changed:

"*{{Cite web|last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |website=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]] |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 |isbn=978-0-19-861412-8 |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-112775 |access-date=14 March 2021 |url-access=subscription}} – Online edition"

->

"*{{Cite ODNB |last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 }}".

You are a much more experienced editor than I am, and you seem to specialise in correct referencing. I would like to learn from you and do my references right next time. You surely agree that we edit Wikipedia to improve it. I do not see the improvement here. Why should "Cite ODNB" be preferred over "Cite web"? I find it does not make sense to invent special templates for particular "important" sources, and even less sense to enforce the use of such templates. I feel we should limit ourselves to "Cite book", "Cite journal", "Cite news", "Cite web" (these are the ones supported by the Visual Editor). I was once a fan of "Citation", but abandoned it. In the present case I used "Cite web" specifically because I found this ODNB article on the website, not in the book. We have lost the link to the source as you have removed the URL parameter and clicking the DOI provokes an error "Not found". This DOI had been added by Citation Bot on 7 April 2021 and should be correct. The error results, seems it, from the access restriction, but this is not obvious to the wider reader. Besides, should there really be a space between the template name and the pipe of the first parameter? —and after the end of the last parameter's argument? Perhaps there should, but I have never done so and have seldom been corrected for this. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)