User talk:Chris Capoccia

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


Thanks for adding PMIDs such as you have done in these edits [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neurosurgery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • #[[oncological neurosurgery]] (also called [[neurosurgical oncology]]; includes [[pediatric oncological neurosurgery]]; treatment
  • are managed.<ref>''Principles of Neurosurgery- Rengachary, Ellenbogen''{{full}}{{pn}}</ref>>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 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, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Tag removal[edit]

Hi, Chris. It looks like you've been systematically removing citation improvement tags (page needed, nonspecific, etc) while formatting refs without these improvements having being made. If it's deliberate, please stop. If not, please be more careful. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

not sure which edit or citation you're talking about. if it's Bakht's doi:10.2202/1554-4419.1022, it doesn't have page numbers.  —Chris Capoccia TC 17:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
You've just deleted a verification failed tag with this edit a few minutes ago. Have you verified the source? Two nonspecific tags were gone here with no further specification made. As to the Bakht paper, the publicly available copy is paginated, and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a page in a 26-page paper. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Bakht has pages but not page numbers. Click the cite/export link on the publisher's page, and even the publisher cites their own article without page numbers. For Coulson, the citation now has a chapter with pages that seemed like they verified when I read it. What did you think?  —Chris Capoccia TC 21:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not there are page number in an official version is tangential to the purpose of these tags. Their purpose is to ask for improving the citation so that it can be verified without having to browse through many pages of text. If there are no page numbers, the same request can be met by specifying a section or providing a quote. The overwhelming majority of statements can be, should be, and are supported by citing a single page or a similarly specific location. We're here to improve the WP, including by making it easier to verify, correct? Removing these tags seems to do the opposite of that. Eperoton (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)