User talk:Chris Capoccia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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

Hi Chris, Thank you for taking the time to review and edit the article regarding Rashid Massumi. I found your changes helpful. Can you please let me know what exactly I'll need to do to remove the "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification" box at the top? Is it a matter of fixing the following items (which I will correct in short order)?

1. The "Citation not given" note in the heading,
2. The "not in citation given" note for footnote 5?
3. The "self-published source" / "unreliable source" notes in footnotes 3 and 9?

Thank you.

PPM Peter (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)PPM Peter[reply]

actually, I added the box at the top because there are several paragraphs without any references at all.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I see you've been hard at work cleaning up cites, thank you. Please, though, don't change article titles to insert excess capitalization. Title case is fine for journal names, but we use sentence case for article and contribution titles. With rare exceptions (usually transient or obscure) this is the way PubMed presents the article titles. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you don't care how the actual title was capitalized by the publisher?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because publishers are all over the map in their choice of house styles, it would be too distracting for readers to simply mimic them. Sometimes a publisher will use allcaps, sometimes title case, and sometimes sentence case. We mostly try to follow the examples of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources when working in wp:WikiProject Medicine. In practice, dibberi's tool or citation bot's output shows what we want pretty reliably. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm using citation bot one section at a time in my sandbox, but the bot does different things depending on if you start with pmid or doi.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds plausible. It's probably going to Pubmed's database if given a pmid, and to Crossref's database if given a doi. I'll leave a note at the bot's talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. The references in the long non-coding RNA page are not currently in the standard format. Rjwilmsi can fix this with a bot (see User_talk:Rjwilmsi#Long_non-coding_RNA_page). As a main contributor to this article, would you agree to this change? Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commented at Rjwilmsi's talk.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Where 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)[reply]