User talk:Chris Capoccia

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. OldManPants 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Vicks VapoRub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiratory distress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources tag topic conflict

The following tag appears on one my articles shortly after each edit.

{ { Primarysources | article | date = November 2011 } }

The article in question is Tempo 20 wp, which is a hazardous substance commonly use throughout the world. Miss-use has caused hospitalization. That seems to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

It is impossible to write an article about a hazardous substance without including a link to the corporation that manufactures the hazardous substance.

This tag seems to be complaining because I include links to the only manufacturer.

Perhaps I am unfamiliar with all of the rules, so it may be possible that I have overlooked something. Could you please let me know how to correct this situation?

I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is everything fixed up now? —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coturnism

Could you explain what the purpose of this edit was? I tried to run the citation bot, but somehow it couldn't write the references to the page. If you were planning to the {{cite doi}} template, it is not the same as writing {{cite journal | doi=etc}}. I have reverted the edit, because the previous references were already properly formatted, including URLs and PMCIDs. JFW | T@lk 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i had planned on following that edit immediately by running citation bot, but the bot was not cooperating and it took a while before i could finish. it's fixed now. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into similar from you on other medical articles.[1] You are changing the citation style, and you shouldn't be doing that. The original citations were correct, and conformed with the citations used on medical articles; you are changing them to a different style, which WP:CITE explains you shouldn't do. I find the citations you are installing sub-optimal, so please don't change citation style on articles without first gaining consensus on talk. I've reviewed your talk archivs now and see this has come up several times, and see that you are aware of the Diberri citation style used in medical articles; would you please stop doing this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous ones were suboptimal as they did not include identifiers like DOIs or PMIDs, there was a mixture of citation styles, there was a mixture of author listing styles. The main problem was that Citation Bot stopped working. You're forgetting the historical comments from people who liked the changes. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that Citation Bot stopped working. The problem is that you are over writing previously established citation styles in articles in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. I would also appreciate if you would stop doing this. Boghog (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i know about that guideline (it's not a policy), but i disagree that my edits went against it. i started my edits on this version from April 18, 2012. there was no consistent citation style and there was a lot of missing bibliographic information. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Callous and unemotional traits

Explanations aside, I've noted that you've been asked numerous times here on your talk to stop changing citation style; please don't do it again. Medical articles typically use the Diberri format, and your introduction of another style is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

care to point to even something like a guideline that says the 'diberrii' format is preferred for medical articles? or is this just your preference? —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are both wrong and me too for not more carefully checking the history of this article ;-) This article was created largely de novo in a single edit. The original editor established a style that included list-defined references which moves the full citation from the body of the article into the references section (which IMHO is a very good idea) and free format citation style that separated the authors last name from their first initials with a comma (I am not fond of but I can live with). Then it was changed in this series of edits to move the full citations in-line with the raw text (uggh, very bad move and clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR) and converted to the Vancouver system (which I personally like but in this particular case is contrary to WP:CITEVAR). In a subsequent series of edits, the Vancouver system was changed to a first1, last1, ... system which combines the worst of both systems (an in-line and very verbose syntax). In order to conform to WP:CITEVAR, I propose that we segregate the references and use the templated first1, last1, ... system. OK? Boghog (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing how that first edit "establishes" anything. There is no accepted style with URLs at the end like that. Most entries use "Last, F.I.;…" naming, but some use spaces between the initials and some use initials without dots. Some entries use full journal names. Some use abbreviated names. None of them use quotes around the article name or italicize the journal name. Some use dashes between page numbers. Some use hyphens. As far as I can tell, Callous and unemotional traits has no established style and can be whatever is agreable to most. I don't care whether we decide all the citations should be named in the references section or not. I definitely think the article should continue to use citation templates with PMIDs, DOIs and PMCs and not go back to using plain text with URLs. I would prefer to use full journal names and full author names. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that citation templates should be used. Furthermore conversion citations from non-template to template format with appropriate care can preserve the displayed format and hence does not violate WP:CITEVAR. However the {{cite journal}} template supports both the Vancouver and first1, last1 author systems. What I am requesting is that if a Vancouver System has been established first in an article, that system should be preserved. If a system where the last name and first initials are separated by a comma was first established, that system should also be preserved. Finally the list-defined references syntax is an excellent way of segregating verbose citation templates from the body of the text and if that system was first established, it should be preserved. Boghog (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i agree about the list-defined references. i believe that Dolfrog was the one who changed that around beginning april 20 and not me. i agree with you about the theoretical article with an established citation system. i just don't see how anyone could honestly look at this particular article the way it was and say that there was any established style. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it was Dolfrog not you that removed the list-defined references and I apologize for not making this more clear. I am also I very aware that the history of this article has become very complicated. It took me a few minutes to figure out what happened ;-) But in any case, I think we are now more or less in agreement. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not in agreement, and no, you didn't correctly "figure out what happened" or note all the changes introduced by bot-- similar problems have been raised numerous times here on his talk. Now, since Dolfrog and I are the ones trying to work on the article, it would be nice if the altering of citations would cease until consensus is gained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem from my perspective is that Chris_Capoccia left the references with no information what so ever, just a list of links when his bot probably failed to work. I used the recommended reference creation template using Pubmed IDs. This seems to be a completely bogus discussion from a working editors perspective and probably more about bot design. dolfrog (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lotta misinfo above. Let's look at the history.

First, there was no established citation style-- the article was put up in one edit by a new editor who never returned and has not edited the article again.[2] Since then, Dolfrog and I have attempted to write the article. Whether or not we accept that per WP:CITEVAR we should retain the original citation style based on one edit, bot edits by Chris Capoccia altered the citation style in unacceptable ways: please stop doing that. If you want to run a bot, gain consensus.
Yes, the first version, based on one edit by a user new to Wikipedia, used list-defined refs. Yes, Dolfrog later moved the citations inline (after Chris Capoccia stripped the refs, changing the style in multiple ways, preparing to run a bot, then left the job undone [3]). Not only did he change from manual to cite templates, please notice the author format on the original version-- none of that bogus first name last name comma mess that these bots install and that medical articles don't use. I would argue that since list-defined refs stink, I hate to work with them, Dolfrog and me are the ones writing the article, the original editor is no longer working on the article, then Dolfrog and me can agree to remove list-defined refs. Boghog has now re-instated them. That makes it hard for me to work on the article. This is a matter for consensus-- stop changing things without discussion.
Now, what else are Chris Cappocia's bot edits doing. First, he stripped the refs and didn't replace them. Next, he changed a manual citation method to cite templates-- which is most decidedly a breach of WP:CITEVAR (manual citation is an accepted method). And finally, he installed an author name method that was not used in the original version and is not used in the Diberri format and is a mess to work with and creates inconsistent formatting, and now has to be removed.
In other words, regardless of the list-defined refs, Chris and BogHog are editing against CITEVAR and making the work that Dolfrog and I are trying to do (ummmm, actually write the article) harder. Please stop making it harder for us to write the article. I will fix the author name mess, and since Dolfrog and I are actually trying to write the article, it would be appreciated-- in fact most kind-- of the two of you to please stop altering the sytle and let us get on with writing the article. BogHog is focusing on reinstating list-defined refs, and both of you are instating an author name format that is not used in medical articles and was not used in the original version. Furthermore conversion citations from non-template to template format with appropriate care can preserve the displayed format and hence does not violate WP:CITEVAR. Wrong.
Since we are having to engage the citations to fix the issues, it would be nice if you let us not have to deal with arbitrary citation changes, and leave us to work on more important matters.First, this conversation belongs on article talk if you are going to continue making it harder for us to work. Second, the original author name style is much more in line with Diberri than the mess instaged by bot. Third, consensus for list-defined refs is not there; please discuss on talk. And finally, this conversation belongs on article talk-- I will place a copy there now. It's a fine day when an important article that has so many content issues that we are struggling to correct has to be sidetracked by bot edits and citation style issues that only make it harder on those who are trying to address more substantial content and citing issues. Much appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, there can be no CITEVAR violations without an established style. secondly, i think it's important to point out that my last edit was two days / 70-some edits ago. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree-- the current problem is BogHog. But, you do still need to understand that you shouldn't be altering the Diberri style in medical articles. That was all I wanted to point out to you when I started this discussion, but a history of what happened in this particular articles goes beyond that, and BogHog's conclusions are misleading. What would be most appreciated is if consensus about citation style is left to those who are tying to work on the article, bots don't change a style once its established, and BogHog refrain from sidetracking actual work on the article. I had intended to get in there today and try to finish cleanup so all the tags can be removed ... now the article has list-defined refs, which I hate and cannot work with. Motivation to fix the article-- gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

What exactly are you doing to the references? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Hypnobirthing

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hypnobirthing , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineslarge (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove for Vitamin U

A lot of claims in that article are based upon internal claims at wikipedia. You did not tag any of the claims with {{fact}}. Could you be more specific?

Just about every sentense needs a citation (see MOS:MED#Citing_medical_sources). You cannot cite Wikipedia (see WP:MEDRS & WP:SPS). —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence is demonstrated in following sentences

Plenty of evidence is in category:indoles and category:isothiocyanates. You seem to be requiring that every sentence be given a citation. If you had followed nearly any of the internal links, then you would realize that S-methylmethionine is not the only beneficial chemical in cabbage. So, I want you to delete your first new fact request, becase the information is internal. It might not be the only vitamin without a chemical structure. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not deleting it. from WP:SPS, "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using wikipedia articles as sources. I am expecting that if you want a fact check, that you hav read the relevant wikipedia articles. In this case, I am also talking about article abstracts in my evidence on Vitamin U. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that violates WP:V. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every sentence in Vitamin U is supported, and nearly every sentence on Vitamin U is dedicated to proving that cabbage contains several beneficial substances other than S-methylmethionine. Plus, that those substances are not molecules, but functional groups on molecules. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong way to think about a Wikipedia article, and it violates WP:OR. You should not try to prove anything with a Wikipedia article. You need to cite reliable sources without synthesis. See WP:SYN. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know how to condense something called an abstract into one line, without synthesis. You can't do it without synthesis. To be sure, perhaps wikipedia authors hav a narrrow view of synthesis, so I will RTFM. If I do not say that Vitamin U is composed of two or three functional groups on many different molecules, then some people might miss that point, and it iz nothing compared to what I do in abstract condensations. I think it would be more helpful than a tag for you to ask how I got from Abstract to Line.137.186.41.70 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful for you to review some Good Articles at WP:GA/NS. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that external links can't be bright searches at Pub Med?

137.186.41.70 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKSTOAVOID #9: "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Vitamin U with cabbage.

The problem with merging Vitamin U with cabbage#medicinal_properties is that Brassicaceae az far flung as radishes, horseradish, and Broccoli sprouts were long ago discussed. I haven't done much to the article other than classify statements and support them. I wuz thinking that classifying the medicinal properties of Vitamin U would help you understand notability. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that there are no reliable sources cited that those effects are even connected with Vitamin U. They are merely about healthfulness of cabbage relatives. Anyway, I've proposed moving the article to Methylmethionine Sulfonium Chloride as it looks like that's the preferred name. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]