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.

Shauna Bloom

It doesn't matter much seeing as the article is most likely about to be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shauna Bloom) but just figured I'd let you know that your latest edits on that page appear to be in violation of MOS:STYLERET. I'm not undoing them because there's not much point, but just letting you know that rule exists in case you weren't aware. QuietHere (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere I know about that rule, but there's no way the 14-Jan rev has any kind of consistent cite style that I would be switching the article to a different style   — Chris Capoccia 💬 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty consistent to me. All written in text rather than templated, "nowiki" around URLs, things like that. More capital letters than necessary but otherwise nothing too out of place. Having had a look through the page history, it doesn't appear that any one editor ever defined that style and it may have just happened incidentally at some point since 2018, but even so it's been that way for a while. I dunno, like I said it doesn't matter 'cause the page is gone in days' time anyway; just figured it's worth keeping in mind for the future anyway. QuietHere (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea what you're looking at. First 2 cites use templates, one with incorrect chapter name and missing author, one with unhyphenated ISBN. The two LA Times cites have a different date format than everything else. The Backstage cite has first name first unlike the others. Second LA Times cite has 2 URLs but the linked title matches the ProQuest URL and not the linked LA Times URL. Both bare ProQuest URLs subject to link rot.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 19:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing ISSN numbers

You are removing the ISSN numbers for sources for which there is a DOI # or a JSTOR #. Please stop. Citations with a DOI # or a JSTOR # are often behind paywalls, & an ISSN can sometimes help some readers find the physical copy in a library. Peaceray (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern libraries let you get directly to the article with the DOI. JSTOR lets you log in and read articles. ISSN only identifies the periodical and does not help most people get directly to any article. But OK, I hadn't heard of anyone doing anything useful with ISSN when there was a more specific identifier for the article.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 00:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Does everyone who has access to the Internet & Wikipedia have access to modern libraries? While this may be the case for most, I am certain that it is not the case for all. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

also lots of library items are listed at worldcat, and OCLC can be added that seems more useful to me than ISSN.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 00:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Of the two, I also think that the OCLC is more important & useful than the ISSN. However, I will not that some citation tools, specifically citer.toolforge.org/citer.fcgi routinely include the ISSN in journal citations. To remove them seems like a Sisyphean task & probably will lead to inconsistency. Peaceray (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Henry VI

I was not sure if you checked that source you shortened/fixed. But it does not appear to mention Henry VI's son's death at Tewkesbury, Henry's death from melancholia, or Historie of the arrivall of Edward IV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

no, i was just reformatting. but it didn't take that long to find a different source that actually said something.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 01:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. It is all good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim May (chemical engineer)

Hi Chris Capoccia,

Thank you so much for the refining of sources in both the Alan Jackson (businessman) article and the Nylex Plastics article. Is it possible for you to do the very same editing on the Jim May (chemical engineer) article as well? I am having trouble doing that, when it comes to not duplicating the same source when it is needed in multiple places. Thanks again. Carey3146 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

done!  — Chris Capoccia 💬 00:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much mate. Really appreciative! Carey3146 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Evelyn Valdez-Ward

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Evelyn Valdez-Ward, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)