User talk:Chris Capoccia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PMID 24843434[edit]

Hi, in this edit you added PMID 24843434 to three different citations, it wasn't the correct PMID for any of them. I've now removed it. What happened? Thanks Rjwilmsi 16:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for fixing. I really don't remember what I was doing. It was clearly incorrect. these articles don't have a PMID. I fixed the page numbers just now to match the DOI records.  —Chris Capoccia TC 17:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Destructive Edits[edit]

What happened here (and here and here &c.)? This edit decimated several citations, losing valuable information, and the subsequent lossy reconstructions by bots have made them quite time-consuming to repair.

chocolateboy (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

not clear on your use of "destructive"… most of them have to be compared as more than one action like this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klebsiella_pneumonia&type=revision&diff=761891523&oldid=760470400   —Chris Capoccia TC 21:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

These edits are discarding:

  • publication dates
  • access dates
  • page numbers
  • publishers
  • URLs
  • quotes
  • and corrections

The bots are provided to expand stubs and other inadequate and incomplete references, not to "fix" citations which have already been compiled and corrected manually, often painstakingly.

chocolateboy (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data. from Template:Cite_journal#Publisher, publisher is not normally used. also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID.  —Chris Capoccia TC 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
---
the current citation for Markova 2002 is back to matching the pubmed data

It ought to be clear from the truncated dates (2002 vs January 2002) that the PubMed data is a subset of what can be gleaned from the original publications. In this case, the linked article also includes the author's full name. I fail to see how the article is improved by snipping these details.

publisher is not normally used
also in Template:Cite_journal#URL, accessdate is not used for DOI or PMID

It says the access date is "not necessary", rather than "not used" in this case, but fine. That's at most 2/7 defensible deletions.

My biggest concern here is the removal of the quote, which turned a sourced statement ("in extremely rare cases") into what looks like an unsourced POV. Eventually, without the quote for context, it would have been flagged with {{citation needed}} and removed. And once citations are mangled in this way, I doubt most editors even notice, let alone have the time, energy or patience to go back and repair them.

chocolateboy (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hemovanadin that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jschnur. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Evolution of mammals without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jschnur (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

URLs that point to the same place as DOIs; previous edit in same article was similar.  —Chris Capoccia TC 01:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Emily Ying Yang Chan[edit]

Your edit on Emily Ying Yang Chan is producing several items which show no information. I urge you to NOT edit in this way UNTIL you can actually deliver the result that you intend to produce. Can't you at least LOOK at your resulting page AFTER-wards and PERSONALLY revert your edits when they remove from the bibliography the publication information that should be readable by site visitors?

You seem to be having the SAME problems editing THIS bibliographic data that you have exhibited for the past several months (see above). Please don't try these advanced techniques, which you have demonstrated that you cannot successfully do. MaynardClark (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)