User talk:Chris Capoccia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Susan Smalley

I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, and I was just wondering what you meant by tagging that additional sources or references are needed for the Susan Smalley article? It seems to me that there are plenty of third-party sources referenced on the page, but as you are the one who flagged it, I wanted to check with you first before removing the alert. Thanks!--Smalleywall (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two main problems (maybe 3).

there are a lot of unreferenced statements. not allowed in a biography of a living person. see WP:BLP.
there are a lot of references written by the subject of the article. also not allowed. see WP:ABOUTSELF.
are you susan smalley? or closely connected with susan smalley? just asking because your username looks similar. if you are, you need to follow WP:AVOIDCOI.

thanks. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armatimonadetes

Thank you for verifying my contribution and making suggestions, I am a bit new at this. I am an avid and budding biologist an would like to see more precise articles on the phylogeny and systematics of organisms consistant with present consensus.

As such the verification of Fimbriimonas ginsengisoli is located in the taxbox (my bad). Also notes one and two are notes that I created based on my interpretation of what types of information is located in both the NCBI and LSPN databases. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nothing in wikipedia articles is allowed to be based on your interpretation. it must be referencing statements from reliable sources. see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. if there are not enough reliable sources, the article should not exist on wikipedia. it should be published somewhere else instead. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I probably didnt make myself clearly understood. NCBI lists only species that they have genetic information for, in this case bacterial strains an lists them according to their perceived genetic relatedness. LSPN on the other hand is an authoritative source for bacterial nomenclature listing all validated bacterial species, however they do not contain a list of partially described environmental clones or well described uncultured bacterial strains of new species. As such i was trying to merging the two databses together. For the most part they a very compatible taxonomically, however problems do arise with a limited number of species. For example the phylum Armatimonadetes has three species that are described and listed, two of which are currently in press and as such not yet validated by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria and as such not listed in LSPN. NCBI has not aquired those strains and as such hasnt listed them in it's taxon browser. The third species Fimbriimonas ginsengisoli has a strain deposited in NCBI but it's authors did not publish it's decription in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology or the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (ISJB/IJSEM), the first step in validating a new species.

The Long and short of the story is I'm compiling two datasets together with a few taxonomic kinks to work out. Also i cannot cite what is not explicitly stated by either online databases. --- Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think maybe you still haven't read Wikipedia:No original research. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your help in clearing up fen-phen. Is it proper WIKI etiquette to post such a thank you note?

—PietrH (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome (yes, my talk page is the right place). glad i could help. most of my edits lately have been cleanup. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 00:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources in Hypothyroidism

Please could you make it clear in your edit comments that you are removing primary sources as you did here: [1] Removing sources should always undergo scrutiny. Also I am not in favour of replacing primary sources with a tag (like {{fact}}) because 1) it leaves the claim with no support at all; and 2) it makes it harder to find a secondary source. I brought up the topic on this page in order to (hopefully) clarify the guidelines: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)‎. Thanks, pgr94 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would have thought that my comment in the fact tag "don't list all dozen studies. find one or two reliable medical sources" would have been sufficient. the previous text was original research / synthesis. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

Chris,

Can you tell me why you keep deleting most of the contents of the citations, e.g., here? Citations are supposed to be written out in full, not reduced to a doi number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am also forcing citation bot to run. so those edits are also part of my changes. i think you can see a general improvement in formatting and consistency in this diff. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought {{cite doi}} already resulted in automatic completion of the citation. I too am confused by your actions. pgr94 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the whole article consistently used cite doi, i would have left everything that way. as it was, it was a mix of bare urls, different abbreviations and different formats. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the two above editors, having noticed this edit. It's strange behaviour when the references are already full {{cite journal}} templates. You caught one stray external link but it's not necessary to strip every reference down to a doi and run a bot to fill them out again. It's now very difficult for me to check your changes without analysing every reference in detail. I third the request for you to stop doing this. Thanks Jebus989 ^✰ 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is not so much my edits (completing full names, journal titles, standardizing on pmid and doi instead of urls, etc.) as it is the piece of junk diff system on wikipedia that can't even reasonably manage simply adding/removing an empty line. i do not have a history of vandalizing pages and citation bot is an approved bot for harmonizing and standardizing citation formats, so i fail to see what the problem is. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling you a vandal, you're just making a mess in the edit history without achieving anything (except perhaps expanding a straightforward author list into one formatted with |first2 |last2 ... ). I explained the problem, if I'm monitoring an article and trying to track your changes it becomes impossible when you've nearly wiped every reference on the page. If you see a missing field and just can't bear to leave it empty, by all means fill it in, or better yet use AWB to do it. I guess if you're not listening to the ~~two~~ three above complaints you won't be listening to mine either. Jebus989 ^✰ 22:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your talk page archives is full of complaints, and you're being unreasonably persistent Jebus989 ^✰ 22:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpseudonym inchicago/World Class Punk

Hi there, the author of the above draft asked for feedback here on what he/she needs to do before moving the article to mainspace. I noticed that you had put a copyvio template on the draft, I don't see the copyvio myself (copyright is not my area), so I would appreciate it if you would clarify that either at the request for feedback or on the user's talk page User talk:Johnpseudonym inchicago. Thanks, Quasi human | Talk 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you don't see the copyright violation because the {{copyvio}} template hides it until the issue is resolved. you can see the violating text by looking at the page source. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I see it now. Quasi human | Talk 15:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Myoadenylate deaminase deficiency

Hi Chris. I am reasonably new to Wiki. In working on the MADD page, and I notice you edited it earlier this month. Thanks! Would you mind giving me a bit of feedback on the MADD Talk page as to what areas need more citations, and if anything isn't clear (or is really muddy), and what should be expanded on. I am not real good at citations yet, but am working on learning.. sorry. I hope to have time to continue research and expand the piece quite a bit in the next months. Thanks, Tom User Talk:67.189.56.3 ?? —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. There's a whole section that doesn't have any references, and I flagged each of the other individual statements that need citations. I can help with formatting if that's giving you trouble. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris I see your notes regarding citations, and should be able to find something for that section too, though I don't have a good biology background. If you could help with formatting, that would be terrific. Tom