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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am afraid you've got me on WP:SYN, and it iz like basic chemistry. I wouldn't know where to go for that. It would not be Pub Med. The thing about WP:SYN iz that it's talking about politics, and Chemistry is a physical science. There must be a way for me to explain how I got from point A to point B, because it's so close to physics and mathematics, where a lot of synthesis...you must know...is done. Strangely enough, mathematics is an art. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

methylmethionine iz an oversimplification. Sulfonium Chloride is only one of the salts that you could find for it. You will notice that I haven't even begun to use that old conclusion and the references that go with it. The article already exists. Your first impression was that references for Vitamin U were not relevant to it, and that wuz a correct first impression. It's a metabolite even farther downstream than diindolylmethane. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to copy the content from Vitamin U into a section of Brassicaceae, then redirect Vitamin U to Brassicaceae#Medicinal_Properties. Content from Vitamin U should probably find its way into particular vegetable articles, anyway. You can arbitrate this. It's your decision, alone. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should find some reliable medical sources for what exactly is this substance (or are these substances) called "Vitamin U". If it's just a name for health benefits from brassicaceae, then the article should go there. If it is a single compound, then the article should go under the name of that compound. If it is actually a family of equivalent compounds, then I can see how you could write an article called "Vitamin U". But the first thing to do is find sources that meet the WP:MEDRS requirement. Then you can write a properly cited article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

if...if...if...multiple choice, and I do not know which choice is best. It's a family of related compounds. They are not equivalent. Some of them are better in Oncology. Some of them are better in Gastroenterology. Some of them are better in Hepatology. I do not mind reminding people that whole vegetables cover more bases, including fibre and compounds that are being ignored. Many people will stop reading the article at the lead-in, so those sentences should summarize the article in some way. I've added more primary sources. The only secondary source I can think of is the Linus Pauling Institute. They hav an article on isothiocyanates. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The good news is that I checked the Linux Pauling Institute, and they found epidemiology on cruciferous vegetables regarding cancer. The bad news is that they counted all cruciferous vegetables az equal, and I've been finding that they are not. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summaries Should be Compulsory

It would be a good idea for you to set the flag on your preferences to remind you that you have not written an edit summary. Edit summaries are a good way to avoid edit wars, because in them you can refer people to the relevant policy (or guideline) that you are enforcing. Even reversions of obvious vandalism should contain more than "rv". It's also a good practice to maintain in writing essays, because your paragraphs and essays should start and end with a point. Wikipedia frowns on articles with points, I know, and points are good ideas in edit summaries. 137.186.41.70 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)