User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

diberri's tool

Hey I noticed you mentioned a tool when you made these edits. I've been looking for something like Citation Bot that doesn't get blocked all the time, and was wondering if this would fit the bill. I couldn't find any information on it, though. Wondering if you could point me in the right direction? -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

this is diberri's tool.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help in formatting the links on Myocardiodystrophy, I appreciate it. Silverseren^C 19:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D

It's not an option. See:

• Wikipedia:Template limits

The version you just reverted to is not viable. The page is broken, again. Please revert your edit. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

take a deep breath... you've been reverting a lot of useful edits lately. i'll be switching to cite journal in a more orderly fashion.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this and it seems to have brought the other fork into the realm of viability. As I see it, a lot of edits I made manually were being dismissed as bot edits by Nutriveg. Any approach that runs afoul of the template limit will not stand (it was the issue that attracted my attention to this page). Large pages all need to be aware of this issue and use templates wisely and split content into reasonable sized chunks to avoid being broken by this MediaWiki limitation.

I happened to edit after citation bot; when it flopped to the other fork, I also tried to move it forward in a viable manner. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Thank you Anthony (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Summerbell biography

Thanks for all the work you did in properly formatting the scientific references in this bio. Your use of "{cite journal}" was well beyond my Wiki skills. =: ) One minor note: I notice you inserted a "citation needed" on a statement about highest number of scientific citations on a journal paper and removed the reference I had made to Google Scholar. You may be interested to know that Google Scholar can now rank the papers in any journal by number of citations, bringing the most referenced to the top. It was this reference that I originally added to support the statement as fact. Google Scholar is now in direct competition with Science Citation Index in providing this kind of info on citations, but unlike SCI (which requires a subscription), Google Scholar is free. I've reinserted a more informative link back to Google Scholar than the one you deleted. Hopefully, this revised and explained Google Scholar reference will now suffice. I don't think an additional SCI reference is merited, as the average (unsubscribed) user won't be able to follow it. Thanks again for your work! Ross Fraser (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

it took me a while to figure out what the google scholar link was actually showing. i added a lot more text in the citation to clarify how the search shows the rank of the paper.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still having some problems with Google Scholar. First, the 150 papers published (reference 1): the link has been formatted in such a way that the phrase "Richard Summerbell on Google Scholar" is now actually part of the search text! Not surprisingly, this does not return the 150+ papers. Here is the exact URL: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=author:%22R+Summerbell%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=2001&as_vis=1&as_subj=bio+med This will return 154 papers. Note the following: 1) the URL above restricts the search to biology, life sciences, etc. as there was a chemist named R. Summerbell who published in the 1950s (before journals insisted on two letter name abbreviations). 2) the drop-down menu offering to "include citations" is NOT selected, as otherwise the search would return papers that cite the author, as well as papers by the author. Next, reference 9 for the statement "As of July 9, 2010, his 1989 paper on onychomycosis is the second-most-cited original research paper published in the over 50-year history of the journal Mycoses." You inserted a lengthy note that

"Google Scholar counted 195 papers that cited Summerbell's paper and 207 papers that cited Heykants J, Van Peer A, Van de Velde V, et al. (1989). "The clinical pharmacokinetics of itraconazole: an overview". Mycoses 32 (Suppl 1): 67–87."

This is correct. But the paper "The clinical pharmacokinetics of itraconazole: an overview" is just that: an overview, not an original research paper. Scientific journals often publish these review papers to summarize research in a particular field for the benefit of readers trying to catch up. These review papers often become the most cited papers in the journal, as citing them is an easy way for authors to back up statements made in subsequent papers about historical research. But they aren't original research. My original text ("his 1989 paper on onychomycosis is the most-cited original research paper") is correct. But you don't have to take my word for it: go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2561187, click on "display settings" and choose "summary", and read PubMed's classification of this other paper as "review".

Finally, I note you added "self-published?" to reference 12: the official web site of the University of Toronto School of Public Health. Surely a university is the authoritative source of who is on its faculty! If you doubt the authenticity of the link, start at the U of T School of Public Health home page (www.sph.utoronto.ca) and navigate to Faculty, then look up "Summerbell". The link will then match the one cited. Note that while professors may be able, within limits, to write their own bios, the fact of their being on the faculty (which is the only thing being cited here) cannot be altered any more than you can add yourself to the Harvard law faculty by updating Harvard's official web site. Ross Fraser (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Swimming Induced Pulmonary Edema

Wow! Amazing work with the references Chris. Thanks a million. Sipe21 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Chris - quick question about citations for "Swimming-induced pulmonary edema". Much of the community discussion about SIPE symptoms occurs on discussion fora like Slowtwitch.com, etc., but there aren't any scholarly works I've been able to find that address the question of lack of warm-up or rapid start specifically. From the "citation needed" marker it looks to me like you're asking me to cite the absence of literature, which I'm not quite sure how to do. The SIPE world literature is probably fewer than 50 articles, so the depth of scholarship in terms of identifying knowledge gaps is still not very mature. This is the same reason I cite Kat Calder-Becker's web site - there is informal discussion quoted there, but it's a long way from being a peer-reviewed source. Should I just delete the comment that warm-up and slow start are described anecdotally as risk factors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipe21 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia should only include verifiable ideas published in reliable sources. if you can't meet that threshold, then it shouldn't be part of the article, even if it's interesting, useful or true.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks, I'll pull it off the page. Sipe21 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

i moved the link to the beckers' website to the external links section. you might want to review WP:EL. a lot of times, quality links that don't meet the rules for reliable sources can be included as external links.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good approach to me. Many thanks Chris. Sipe21 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates again

Hi Chris, please don't add citation templates to articles that already have a referencing style in place, as you did here. See WP:CITE. References should not be changed to templates without consensus, because the templates can be contentious for various reasons. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

i can't believe you're serious about calling that a citation style. have you looked through WP:CITE?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates should not be added without consensus to articles that already have an existing reference style. This has been discussed many times on WP, and every time there is consensus for that position. See CITE: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

i know all about that rule. i also know that just listing the author and year is not a reasonable citation style unless you're following harvard conventions and listing the rest of the bibliographic info elsewhere in the article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The full cites were in the article until a day or so again when someone removed them. I don't know why they did that, so I'll restore them. But cites can be added without templates. The point is that when you see a referencing system already in place (even if you don't like it), it would be appreciated if you wouldn't add templates. They slow down load time considerably when there are lots of them, and they add clutter without adding more information. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are no bare URLs in that article, so the tag is not appropriate. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

i am confused by your edit comment,"these templates do not allow the material to be read". if you click on the link that goes with the pmid number, then you go to the exact same place as your link. also my citations included doi which allows people with subscriptions to read the whole article easily. in addition, complete citations give the article title and all the other bibliographic information, which would help locate the article if the page is printed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't me, Chris. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Whipple's disease

Regarding these edits, I agree that the non-templated citations were poorly formatted (e.g. use of underline and bare URLs), but in the process you also modified a number of properly templated references by splitting the author names and removing fulltext article URLs. I am usually very happy with the output of Diberri's template filler and have little time for splitting the first name and surname of every author. Please let me know your views, but I have now changed things to the way I like them (and removed some unnecessary primary sources in the process). JFW | T@lk 11:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Effects of cannabis

Just wondered why you're cutting info from the refs. You think it's ok to rely on DOIs alone? --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See you did this and the bot did this this? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

the bot is running because i push the buttons. the bot's edits should be considered as mine. you shouldn't just look at one of my edits. look at the whole series of changes i made. let me know if you see any issues in this diff that i should fix.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of Enzyme Function Initiative

Hi Chris,

Thanks much for taking the time to review and improve the EFI page!

I believe I have addressed many of the issues :

• Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking.

I used your template for the website and press release citations; I think the journal articles are fine per your corrections.

• It needs additional references or sources for verification.

I was actually worried I was approaching overkill, but I added a sentence and citation to the first paragraph under organization. Are there additional areas of concern?

• It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Only 2/18 citations are from the EFI website. The other 16 are either from well-regarded peer-reviewed journals (11), government (4), or university (1) sources which I understood as third-party. Would you explain the areas of concern?

-- It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.
I understand that this will remain indefinitely.

-- This page is a new unreviewed article.
With your review, could this flag be removed?

Thanks much for guidance. Hjimker (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the consistent style note because there is a mixture of external links and footnotes throughout the article. The primary sources note is because of all the external links to enzymefunction.org. I added the additional references note because when I looked through the article quickly I noticed a lot of sentences without footnotes. If one footnote applies in multiple places it can be noted in the others using <ref name=text>reftext</ref> and later <ref name=text/> where text is the name used for the reference.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Thanks much for the clarification and guidance. I'll continue to work on the article to make improvements. Hjimker (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I made the following changes made to address these issues:

• Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking.

All in-line external references have been removed.

• It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

I have removed many of the references to the EFI website and instead let referencing stand on Wikipedia pages or primary literature. Of the 26 in-line citations, 19 are to third party sources. The remaining refer to information about the EFI's specific organization and aims, which cannot be found elsewhere."

Please review to see if you find it more satisfactory. Thanks much. Hjimker (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome

Hi, I was wondering what you did here. I'm trying to figure out what it did, and is it an easier way to do citations in medical journals? It looks like you just put in DOI's and page numbers (not sure why, since most citations would have the page number), then the citation bot cleaned everything up a few minutes later. I can't see how it's easier, though it made everything cleaner. Can it run with PMID's? Do you have to call the Citation Bot over (or do you run it yourself)? Just curious, since citations drive me crazy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

citation bot gives different results if it starts with pmid, doi or jstor. if the bot starts with pmid, it only gives first and middle initials and uses the capitalization from the pmid database. if it starts with doi or jstor, it will find the first names and capitalizations from those records but sometimes it won't find the right page info from the doi. so i think the best results come from starting with page numbers and dois.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Removing sources in Hypothyroidism

Please could you make it clear in your edit comments that you are removing primary sources as you did here: [2] 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)

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)

Thanks, and a comment

Excuse me if I'm entering this in the wrong part of your talk page, or if I'm using the wrong format. I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't know the customs.  :)

Thanks for flagging the missing citations in my Climacostomum article. Some of the items you flagged were fairly uncontroversial...sort of on the order of "Giraffes have long necks."  :) However, I suppose it's best to be thorough. I've been taking my cue from articles like Owl and Shrew, which often contain long stretches of unreferenced text.

Incidentally, one of the changes the bot made to a reference rendered it unintelligible (no names, and no hot link either). No doubt the other changes it made are all for the best...I'll check them more closely when I have time.

Cheers!

Deuterostome (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

this is a fine place to talk about anything related to my contributions. i think it's good that you're comparing your contributions to other articles. i think it would be better to review some articles that have been marked as "good" like these: . the best would be to review wikipedia policies like WP:V. the owl and shrew articles both have problems with not enough citations. also if you can say which reference you think is now unintelligible, i'd be happy to fix it.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of GA-Class articles. I'll go over them with pleasure. I'll make an effort to look for "good" protist articles, too. I started editing because most of the protist pages I've seen are in a sorry state.

The section on "uncontroversial knowledge" in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines suggests grouping a few sources at the beginning or end of the paragraph, rather than interrupting the flow of the text with multiple citations, . I'll follow that convention in the future.

I see you've tidied up the citations (combining duplicate references, for instance). If I'd known how to do the markup, I would have combined them in the first place...obviously, I need to get to know the software better.

Deuterostome (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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, Quasihuman | Talk 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Ok, thanks, I see it now. Quasihuman | Talk 15:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Judicial disqualification

I noticed that finally someone is working on this. It needs quite a bit of work. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Silent stroke

Good job on the citations Chris-I'm too lazy for things like that.7mike5000 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Original research"

Please don't add OR tags when you mean "unreferenced", or just "I didn't know that". If you add such a tag you should leave a note on the talk page saying exactly what you think is unreferenced, and if possible why. Ideally you should try to reference the material yourself - there is a huge backlog of such templates & the most likely outcome of tagging is that the page will continue to sit unchanged, but with an ugly tag, for a long tiome, if not forever. Two recent examples that have come across my watchlist contained nothing but very commonplace material that could certainly be referenced. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

I've run into similar from you on other medical articles.[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. 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.[4] 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.
2. 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 [5]). 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.
3. 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)

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)

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)

References

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

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)

It seems like you're just being obtuse. There are lots of places on the Internet for writing your own opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Read the rules so you can write a good article that doesn't need to be completely rewritten or deleted.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:21, 1 August 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)

Like I said, the first thing to do is find reliable sources. The article does not currently cite any WP:MEDRS sources that verify that "Vitamin U" is a family of compounds including fiber. Without these souces, the article will be stuck as original research.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why wikipedia can write category:isothiocyanates without it being a group of cousins. The fibre part iz the only part I am stretching. The relation between category:indoles and ITC is only that they hav the same parent in a category:glucosinolates, although there are probably glucosinolates that do not decompose into indoles. Half of the point in the article is to provide a launch pad into other articles, where you would be led to understand these things, which are prerequisites for understanding many things in the references of Vitamin_U. Now if you are getting at a regulatory ajency calling it Vitamin U, I do not think I will get anywhere in English. A Norwegian author(ity) and a French author called cabbage juice vitamin U, though. 137.186.46.247 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen many places in wikipedia where citations were requested. I've taken out those fact check requests, because the answer was in another article, and supported. Several times, it was linked into the sentense. So, no you can't use wikipedia as a reference, and there are contexts where that iz implied: The fact iz part of another article and supported. 137.186.46.247 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 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)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for cleaning up the refs on the Aquagenic Pruritis article -- MK

MinervaK (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Tool to build refs from doi or pmid?

Hi Chris,

I noticed that you've been filling in missing ref fields in some articles. Are you using some tool to do this or just doing it by hand? I tried to find one at some point and couldn't, and was thinking about writing one if there's not already one. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

the tool i use is citation bot. it doesn't work very well on large pages, so sometimes i work on sections in my sandbox and paste the results back into the article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks! a13ean (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

changing refs in controversies over genetically modified food

Hi, I noticed you have been going through and updating references in the genetically modified food article. These articles were a real mess and I have been working hard to clean them up and bring them into line with five pillars and good style. Thanks for your work on this! Quick question - I noticed you reformatted the references as per some template (sorry I am ignorant about this) As for me, I really don't like the clutter of these templates and have formatted refs with standard scientific bibliographic style and and have included links to full-text where ever I could find them, as it is so important to source statements in these contoversial articles. The primary goal has been to get reliable references at all, and remove multiple citations to same articles, and I have been going back and formatting them better when I have not had time to properly cite them as I worked. So thanks for formalizing a bunch of them!

quick question and a comment. 1) there is no mandate to use these cluttered formats for references is there? this is just an editor preference thing?

2) comment - you put a MEDRS tag on a scientific american article posting. i took it off. the statement that the source cites is true, and I am working on finding more sources for it. but it is not a medical statement, so does not need a medical reference. "safe enough" is a question of risk management, not medicine. do you know what i mean?Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please please slow down. The article is already huge and converting all the reference into this format is bloating it on the editing page. Can we talk about how to avoid clutter? Can we please discus on talk before you spend more time reformatting everything? You are working hard and I don't want to just revert. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Scientific American article is a blog article which counts as self-published the way I read the rules.

Jumping in the middle here to respond to this!

1) Scientific American is a well established magazine.

2) This is not any blog -- it is a "Guest Blog: Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American" (already not 'self published')

3) About the Author: Pamela Ronald is Professor at the University of California, Davis. Her laboratory has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding. In 2011, Ronald was selected as one of the 100 most creative people in business by Fast Company Magazine. Ronald is coauthor with her husband, Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer, of "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetic and the Future of Food" that was selected as one of the best books of 2008 by Seed Magazine and the Library Journal. Bill Gates calls the book "important for anyone that wants to learn about the science of seeds and challenges faced by farmers". Follow on Twitter @pcronald.

The policy WP:SPS is clearly designed to screen out wackjobs with websites from being cited as reliable. An invited posting at Scientific American by an esteemed professor, expert on the topic (and married to an organic farmer for pete's sake) is surely a reliable source on this issue. This is not what the policy was meant to screen out.Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right that there is no requirement to use citation templates, but i disagree that they're bloating the article. If you try including full URLs for all the article identifiers (DOI, PMID, PMC, JSTOR, BIBCODE, etc), I think the citation will actually take more space.

Catchpole, Gareth S.; Beckmann, Manfred; Enot, David P.; Mondhe, Madhav; Zywicki, Britta; Taylor, Janet; Hardy, Nigel; Smith, Aileen; King, Ross D. (2005). "Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 (40): 14458–62. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10214458C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503955102. JSTOR 3376760. PMC 1242293. PMID 16186495.

There are other ways to organize the references like list-defined references if you think they are making it difficult to edit the text.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this whole issue of citation form. I see why we want full bibliographic citations that won't get link rot and are easy to find again should links rot, but for the life of me I cannot see why this:

cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.0503955102 |title=Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops |year=2005 |last1=Catchpole |first1=Gareth S. |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=102 |issue=40 |pmid=16186495 |jstor=3376760 |bibcode=2005PNAS..10214458C |pages=14458–62 |last2=Beckmann |first2=Manfred |last3=Enot |first3=David P. |last4=Mondhe |first4=Madhav |last5=Zywicki |first5=Britta |last6=Taylor |first6=Janet |last7=Hardy |first7=Nigel |last8=Smith |first8=Aileen |last9=King |first9=Ross D. |pmc=1242293

is preferable to this, which works in hundreds of books and articles published every year:

Catchpole GS et al (2005) Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(40): 14458–62 |pmid=16186495

Can you help me understand that? Why have all that extra, nonessential data? ThxJytdog (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

sounds like a question for WP:CITE and not me.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 02:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is very much a question for you! Style guidelines specifically state "Some editors use citation templates to format article references, though the use of such templates is not required." which is from here: Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_style. Again, the citation templates page Wikipedia:Citation_templates says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus;" Emphasis not added - it is there on the page. Finally the page you pointed me to, points away from doing what you have done. See Wikipedia:CITE#Variation_in_citation_methods I appreciate the work you did -- you pointed out some mistakes and overall made the references stronger. Thank you for that. But as another editor on the page - the major one recently - I wish you would have sought consensus before you so applied your preferred citation style to the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

that's about pages that have already established a consistent reference formatting style. Good luck with that idea.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not being very collegial, here. My point is that wikipedia does not mandate the use of these templates. They are your preference. And you don't have the right to swoop in and push them onto articles that other people are working on. The emphasis added makes it clear that people go to war over this, and your position is the one that is bolded and warned against. I intend to leave your templates, don't worry. I don't have time to edit war over this. But I really am curious why you like this super-detailed and machine-readable(?) format better. Just guessing, but do you or others have dreams someday of some big computerized library being connected to Wikipedia and using these templated citations to connect to articles? To me it is just bloat that makes articles harder for humans to edit, so I am really curious, and would love to hear why you prefer it.Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

because the text of most wikipedia articles is poor, and well-formatted references that enable further research is the only saving grace. yes, the templates are machine-readable. you should check out citation bot. big computer libraries are already connected to wikipedia. there are lots of spiders, and not just google's, that use the article source.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! I hear you on many articles being poor, and being able to go back to citations is essential. When I came across the whole suite of GM articles a few months ago I was blown away by how poor the content was... it was doubly bad because most of the citations were themselves very poor (many websites of anti-GM groups, the content of which was often plagiarized and badly so), and I had to do a lot of work to find decent sources. So I hear you on that. I didn't format many of them well so I do appreciate the formalization you did, so thanks again. On the machine-readable front, I found the page on citation bot, but it just describes what this bot does (and how to keep it off an article). I did a bit of searching to try to see what people are up to with respect to capitalizing on machine-readable citations, but nothing popped. I'm interested in learning more about that.. can you point me to any such projects? I'd really like to understand those potential benefits of the work and others do!Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

CITEVAR

Yet another clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

look, DOIs, ISBNs, chapter URLs & JSTOR IDs are all very helpful for readers. manual formatting that puts all this info behind several clicks and misformats volume numbers as if they were issue numbers is less helpful.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

and besides, it looks like you're following me around on all your old articles. you haven't touched this one for two years. Rhc127 adds a differently formatted ref in april and 75.183.191.35 adds another one formatted like Rhc127's but not like yours a few weeks ago. then you get a burr in your butt and come after me? besides, what's so great about vancouver style anyway? it's not even a single style. there are at least a half dozen variations.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no argument that links like PMID are helpful to readers. I am not specifically following you around, but I routinely monitor articles that transclude the {{Infobox protein family}} template. There is a single Vancouver style that is used by both PubMed and Diberri's template filler and that same style is widely used by articles within the scope of WP:MCB and WP:MED. Finally in the GAF domain article, the creator and first major contributor of the article, Alex Bateman established the Vancouver style and even after the contributions of 75.183.191.35 and Rhc127, the Vancouver style still was the predominate citation style in the article. It would have been less work to reformat the last two citations using Diberri's template filler tool than to replace all five citations with template that include verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters. Boghog (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

well, you might want to look at the differences between my formatting of schultz 2009 and yours. the diberri formatter relies too heavily on info from the pubmed database. in this case it's a chapter of a book with a series and 191 is a volume number and not the issue number. as a side note, is there any recognized vancouver style variation that puts the year where diberri's tool does instead of further towards the end?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One can alway run the citation bot after using diberri's tool to fix these minor errors (btw, I see that the citation bot made the same error as diberri's tool wrt the issue number of the book chapter). To state the obvious, the order of parameters has no effect whatsoever on the how the rendered citation is displayed. Ideally the parameters should be in the same order as they are rendered in the article. Without digging into the history, I would guess that diberri's tool uses a parameter order that matched an older version of {{cite journal}} template. Diberri's tool could easily be updated, but for such a minor cosmetic issue, it is probably not worth the effort. Boghog (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

no, i'm not talking about the parameter order. i mean that if you look at a few of the vancouver variations (ICMJE, BMJ, CMAJ, etc), none of them put the year between the author list and the title.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the displayed citations are internally consistent within Wikipedia (i.e., "Wikipedia-style Vancouver System"). The advantage of this system within Wikipedia is that it permits the display of compact authors lists that avoids the unnecessary "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameter bloat and associated increased load times. If you insist on a more faithful reproduction of the Vancouver System, just replace {{cite}} with {{vcite}}. An additional advantage of the {{vcite}} templates is a further reduction in load times. Boghog (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding citation templates in violation of CITEVAR

This is provocative given how often you've been asked not to add templates. I wish you would respect the guideline. If it continues I'm going to consider requesting admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the previous complaints about this on your talk page: April 2009, November 2010, July 2011, March 2012, April 2012, May 2012, October 2012, October 2012, November 2012 , November 2012, November 2012.

For the sake of clarity, WP:CITEVAR says:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. ...

To be avoided

• Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another
• Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently ...

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

i hope you looked far enough to see that the first major contributors did not care about citations and that the changes were not merely for preference but to facilitate automatic citation corrections. for example, doi:10.1021/ed083p974 does not just have one author like the current citation implies and the article title used with doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.1117 is incorrect. but whatever. you're acting like i did some irreparable harm, when one revert later everything is back to your decrepit manual formatting.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Thanks a lot for helping me on references format in Lower limbs venous ultrasonographyDoc Elisa ^✉ 13:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, I'm working on this article in a sandbox and you are changing all references format what is confusing for me. Please wait I finish the article. Thank you. Doc Elisa ^✉ 15:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My references are perfect now. Thank you very much. You did a superb work. Doc Elisa ^✉ 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

glad i could help.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Use edit summaries

When you edit on chemistry pages, please leave edit summaries as a courtesy to other editors.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

full pdf's

Links to abstracts are good, but links to full pdf's are much better. When you exchange a "hand-made" source which has a pdf for a "citation bot-made" source, the link to the pdf gets lost. This happened in Intermittent fasting, where I put the pdf back in. Please, do not exchange all citations without checking if there is a link to a pdf that gets lost! Thank you. Lova Falk talk 09:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

the full documents are usually copyrighted and protected by the publisher, so direct links to PDFs are often problematic. see WP:COPYLINK.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

oh, wait. now i'm looking at your diff. my link is to the non-PDF full article from the publisher, yours is to the PDF version. whatever... use what you like.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever? Use what you like? Please, don't remove links to full pdf's is what I ask you! Lova Falk talk 10:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

it was the full article, and it was the link used at pubmed, so whatever.... i didn't replace a pdf with an abstract. whether you like the pdf or html format is a preference and not a big deal.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

GABA

Hi -- I just wanted to say that it's great to see the improvements you're making to the GABA article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks. too bad boghog has other ideas.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing the ref formatting

Many of the changes introduced errors. For example you changed <ref name=Coch2005>[[Template:cite journal|{{cite journal]]|last=Duggan|first=L|coauthors=Fenton, M; Rathbone, J; Dardennes, R; El-Dosoky, A; Indran, S|title=Olanzapine for schizophrenia.|journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)|date=2005 Apr 18|issue=2|pages=CD001359|pmid=15846619}}</ref> to <ref name=Coch2005>[[Template:cite journal|{{cite journal]] |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001359.pub2 |chapter=Olanzapine for schizophrenia |title=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |year=2005 |last1=Duggan |first1=Lorna |last2=Fenton |first2=Mark |last3=Rathbone |first3=John |last4=Dardennes |first4=Roland |last5=El-Dosoky |first5=Ahmed |last6=Indran |first6=Saroja |editor1-last=Duggan |editor1-first=Lorna}}</ref> thus labeling the title as a chapter. Thus I have reverted back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you changing date to year? And why are you expanding the authors? IMO it is better the other way.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting reference parameters except for unique identifiers like pmid

Hi, Chris. I'm concerned about this edit you made to the Nesting instinct article, where you mostly deleted information in the references except for a single, particular identifier like the PMID, for instance. I believe this practice is in error. Could you explain why you are doing this and give a link to the policy or guideline you've read that supports it? I think what's happened is you've confused this practice with the use of bot-filling templates like Template:Cite pmid. For that template, you just use a PMID and at some later point, a bot will auto-create a detailed template. These bots wouldn't be needed in the first place if what you are doing is correct. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PS As you see in the article history, bots are coming around to re-add material related to the references. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The bot is acting on my behalf and is triggered by me.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine but I asked why you are making these edits. Would you explain? Jason Quinn (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

well, you can see from the overall diff that i'm removing redundant URLs that point to the same place as more permanent DOIs, adding DOIs and other identifiers removing incorrect and superfluous publishers and generally validating against the CrossRef database.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country is at AFD

I am contacting everyone who did any significant amount of work on Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country to inform them the article is now at deletion discussion at [6]. Dream Focus 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)