User talk:Chris Capoccia/Archive 4

August 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Tornado chaser (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Milk allergy article
When I brought the Milk allergy article up to Good Article, the review asked that the formatting for the references be consistent. You partially deleted five, forcing a bot to repair those, using a different format. I have restored the consistent format. Please do not do any more reference reformatting on this article. To quote an earlier Talk page entry: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference." David notMD (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A requirement for Featured Articles and also sometime Good Articles is consistent citation formatting. One of the advantages of vauthors is that it enforces a consistent format for first authors where as first enforces none. Chaining the citation format of a Good or Featured Article without obtaining consensus is especially problematic. Boghog (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There were first/last formats in the article before my edit. See reference named Caffarelli or Nanagas. Reference named BerniCananiPezzella2016 had a URL instead of using the PMC link and had incorrect pages. Reference named ShahSerajuddin2017 was missing volume, issue & pages. diff  —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 03:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Before your first edit, 60 citations used vauthors and only 3 used firstn\lastn pairs. Clearly the Vancouver style was the predominate style before your first edit. In this diff, vauthors in 7 citations (VenterBrown2017, KoletzkoNiggemann2012, HeineAlRefaee2017, Feuille2015, Heyman2006, BerniCananiPezzella2016, Taylor2015) were replaced with firstn\lastn pairs. Why did you strip vauthors from these citations?  Citation bot could have made all the other fixes you mention without touching the author parameters. Boghog (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use edit summaries to explain what you're doing. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello, I'm INeedSupport. I noticed that you recently removed content from Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus 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. ''I know you're a great contributor to Wikipedia, but having edit summaries would let people know why you decides to edit it. Without it, some people may see your edits as vandalism. '' INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * because you're a moron and i was in the middle of editing —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Intelligent editors use edit summaries. Boghog (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to split Economic_inequality
Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.

Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month.

Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Dyslexia
Hi this is to inform you that Dyslexia which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...''The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing'' thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Linear enamel hypoplasia
Hi! You've put a good deal of work into Linear enamel hypoplasia. I'm afraid I saw no alternative to stubbing it – the versions after the previous clean-up still contained copyvios, and still more was added later on. Do please develop it a bit if you feel inclined – I've left the references you edited in place in that hope. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks. best part of any article in my opinion is always the sources. someone can always use good sources to expand the article. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 00:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries matter
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

ReDS
Hello Chris - are you the editor in charge of ReDS? I think this was mistakenly put into my Sandbox instead of a draft article and need some direction - thank you Chris! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Bestille (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't think anyone is "in charge" all i did was improve the formatting of the citations. It's still a draft article, going through that approval process. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 02:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries when updating with CitationBot
Hey there, I appear to have reverted one of your edits when it appeared you had accidentally stripped out titles and authors and left "Missing or empty |title=" errors in the citations. I see now that you're doing this to summon CitationBot to refill the citations.

It would be preferable if you explained what you are doing in the edit summaries, otherwise it looks like an accidental removal. Thank you :) – Þjarkur (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, i should do that more, especially when citation bot seems to be running much slower lately. it used to only be seconds and now it's much longer. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference style
Chris Capoccia, since you've been addressed times before about changing citation style at articles, with editors pointing to WP:CITEVAR, I wanted to ask the point of this edit and this edit. Were they made because of your preferred style? Or for consistency? Or both? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you should at least pick a good representative diff, and you can see there is no consistent reference style. one major improvement i did make was finding better links for all the archiveurl ones. Some articles had completely incorrect titles. Some places change to the long ISBN. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 02:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked what your intention was. Thanks for replying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

refs
as far as i can see the AJCP refs are rendered useless by removing text - please explain.... JarrahTree 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * easy enough to read a diff and see the improvement. not clear what's so difficult —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 23:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the diff I saw no replacement of text - just bare bones... maybe reading in between... ah I see - the time delay between back to bare bones and waiting - that must be tedious for you - the difficulty is checking an edit and the following one - cheers JarrahTree 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove content or references without an explanatory edit summary
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Extinction risk from global warming, you may be blocked from editing. Your intentions may be noble, but deleting hundreds or thousands of characters of text without explanation is disruptive regardless, and you have already been contacted about this sort of thing by other editors on multiple occasions:. I hope you will take this message on board, instead of ignoring it as you did with the previous requests. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * so if i just add "prepping for cleanup with Citation bot", you're cool? —Chris Capoccia (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is actually the purpose of the edit, then yes. If in doubt, follow WP:ES. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Methylphenidate. Zazpot (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lol "blank a page" :D show me a diff that is blank —Chris Capoccia (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * is not what I said. "remove or blank page content or templates" is what I said. Zazpot (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and if you look at the diff for Methylphenidate, you'll see it's not that either. —Chris Capoccia (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't understand what constitutes removal. Look at your edit history. See the column that contains red and green items, where each item is a parenthesis containing either a plus or minus sign and an integer, or a zero? That column shows the net character gain (for green and plus) or loss (for red and minus) resulting from the edit. Short of a bug in the underlying software, it is impossible for an edit to result in a negative number in that column without the edit involving removal of material from the page. So, even if the edit also involves replacing the removed content with something shorter, that is still a net removal.
 * Such removals should all have explanatory edit summaries. Yours do not have them. This is disruptive for other editors. Hence my messages here. Zazpot (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * lol. WP:ES only says, "It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field" not that failure to complete edit summaries will result in blocking. you should stop trying to own wikis. —Chris Capoccia (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing single quotes from citation title parameter
Hello. At Christian Benítez, single quotes surrounding a title which was a direct quotation, aand which were present on the original cited webpage, were removed using CitationBot. I can't find anything in CS1 documentation to support such removal, and was wondering if it was a mistake? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bach cantata recordings
The best, most detailed information is on Bach Cantatas Website. We use the site mainly for recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it's self-published source and the URL got stripped so how can you cite to that? — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-published or not, it's the best information around. Recordings are recordings, and here you get exact information about instrumentalists in the orchestra, date and place of recording, etc. We'd do our readers no favour if we didn't make that information available. I am sorry, I made a mistake not removing the ref tags when moving the entry to External links. Btw, - references like that have passed the source check of featured articles, example BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL
You visited Henry Dorling because he was in this category - but you didn't touch the Ipswich Journal reference which was causing it to be in the category, instead adding what seems to me to be an unnecessary doi link to the ODNB reference. Pam D  14:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. I grew up in a house in Dorling Drive in Epsom, named after him. Pam D  17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FREMO citation
Hello, the diff Special:diff/925515952 has no edit summary. Would it be possible to share/explain the (intended) changes? Appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * look at the old rev and see the errors & fix those. there is a handy diff button to help. look at the mess of a citation it was before. — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again, apologies for being unclear. What is the intended benefit from the removal of eg.  ?  —Sladen (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the source does not have an obvious date, I didn't see one. Clearly the access date is wrong and languages is for foreign languages. — Chris Capoccia 💬 11:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , visiting the cited webpage (https://www.fremo-net.eu/en/modular-systems/h0-scale/h0-europe/h0-normentwurf/) we can read "The standard is written in German. … translate … the standards in English, French, …", so the language tag of  would appear to make sense to citing specially the English-language translation, verses the German-language original.  Clicking on that English-language   PDF file, and reviewing the PDF metadata we can confirm a corresponding  .  —Sladen (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh Thought Citations
Hello, I just wanted to drop in and personally thank you for your help in updating and fixing many of the citations of the HCMT article. It is very much appreciated.

My best. Jp16103 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of one reference in Anthelidae
Hi Chris, I disagree with your removal of a citation to a suplementary table from a reference, as that table has a different set of authors from the paper and in my opinion needs to be attributed correctly. Could you please intimate the logic why something which makes the article more accurate has been removed without an edit summary? I am open to rewording that as I am not aware of the template or guideline for supplementary annexure, in this case a data stored in an Excel sheet. AshLin (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ok. i adjusted the citation to specifically mention the checklist. does this solve the problem for you? — Chris Capoccia 💬 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks AshLin (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ozone therapy
Thanks Chris for doing all that hard work of getting those citations into order! I was feeling sick at the thought of doing all that legwork myself! Much appreciated ! Fuzzypeg★ 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and citation bot
Are you going to continue until the category is empty? I was quite enjoying the ride! :-) Nemo 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * trying to… we'll see how long it lasts before the next time someone shuts down citation bot. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs at 24k and Category:Pages with citations lacking titles at 31k... I'm curious where they end up! Nemo 19:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * most of the rest of "Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL" are using templates like cite map that are not supported by citation bot. many of "Pages with citations having bare URLs" and "Pages with citations lacking titles" are actually broken links that citation bot cannot fix. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can identify the titles most likely to be edited successfully with some regex search? Then you could submit them for citation bot processing without the category method, which is quite intensive. Nemo 06:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * also there are confusing cases like Calau, where the actual mistake is not in that page but in Template:Infobox German location, and that template transcludes other data, so doubtful that any normal person could figure out how to fix the error. — Chris Capoccia 💬 19:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, in this edit you added the title "Log in or register to view" in Dutch. That's not helpful! Might you have a way to check for any similar instances, e.g. Facebook domain? That title alone "Aanmelden of registreren om te bekijken" is currently found on 17 pages. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again; for the record, I looked into the other instances of that text, and they were all left by Citation bot (I didn't check whether all of the edit summaries also mentioned you). The bot had been fixed, but its past edits had not been; I have fixed those now. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that title is now on the bad data list. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ref Fixer
Thank you so much for fixing these amount of references, hopefully this will be GA sooner or not, at least it the ref looks good now. 47.187.215.98 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing urls to cited texts?
Hello, I noticed you removed links to the full text of some citations in the Long-term_effects_of_cannabis article. Could you explain your reasoning behind it?--TZubiri (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * copyright??? — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed links to texts that were openly hosted by the publishers, there is no copyright claim. When in doubt you can adhere to DMCA, and only act upon takedown requests from copyright holders. I'm reverting the edit, please be more careful next time, we need to work towards citations beeing more accessible, otherwise we are asking users to blindly trust blue reference numbers in between brackets. --TZubiri (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * i don't know exactly which URL you are talking about. there were also a lot of redundant URLs that are exactly the same place as the DOI or PMC or whatever. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so by adding a doi, a link is automagically generated. It appears that you split your removal into two edits, I only reverted the second edit, which coincidentally was the one that removed my citation, so right now the link to the pdf is still there, which is a good thing in my estimation, simpler, less magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&diff=959372438&oldid=958920950

--TZubiri (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The best link is still PMC which is automatically put into the title of the article when present. Whenever there is PMC, the URL should be blank. So it's just stupid linking to PNAS pdf when there is also PMC. — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's great, but the PMC link redirects to a version of the article hosted by ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. I don't know what the relationship between the nih and the article is, but the link I provided comes straight from the publisher as far as I can tell. NIH seems like an unecessary link in the chain. Sure it might be great as an aggregator and it might provide links for material that would otherwise remain unlinked to wikipedia, but going straight to the source is better right? --TZubiri (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's how WP:CS1 works — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I've got some homework to do
re: History of Baseball in the United States. I see you wrote out a couple of references in "Wikipedia longhand." Great, I assume that's necessary. Though a simple link seems to get the reader to the same place, there must be a reason for breaking down some citations into their component labels -- first name, last name, etc.

My original intent was to merely copy edit, but I realized without some more citations, the article might get bonged and all my copy editing would be for nothing, so I started looking for links to either confirm a given statement of fact or add content that didn't need to be brought into the article but that augmented the text. Fine. I'll learn when to and when to add a simple link. I hope.

Your edit in the heading "The Science of the Sport Changes the Game" is one such, where you left one link untouched and turned the other into a lengthier citation. However, there is now an error message I don't understand: "Cite error: A ref tag is missing the closing /ref (see the help page)." Fact is, the seems to be right where it belongs. Can you illuminate for me?

Just curious -- how were you alerted to those two references, deep inside this article? They can't possibly be the only two I got wrong!

I'm a newbie, Chris, and as such will probably be a bit of a pest for a while. Thanks for any feedback you can give me. Cheers, Jim Houghton
 * i was searching for nih.gov pmc URLs that needed to be formatted as citations. then i used citation bot to assist with adding in details. focus on editing parts you feel comfortable with. other people will edit other stuff. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, Chris, I am doing as you say -- this article contains plenty of awkward writing to keep a copy editor busy. Do I understand, though, that it's okay for me to add a link as validation of a claim or a path to further reading, leaving it to others to format the links/citations properly? Since a global critique of the article is that it lacks "citations for verification" I feel I'm at least contributing relevant information, saving others the need to look for it, even if the last step is left undone. Also, continue to be curious why that reference kicked out an error, since the ref-ref brackets looked to be correct. Thanks for responding. Jim Houghton
 * definitely. put some kind of reference there and someone else can adjust the formatting. — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Institutional apartheid
User:Chris Capoccia Thanks for the help in cleaning up the cites in IR, I think this section on Algeria had an error - the quote was not to be in the reference and you cleaned it up by removing it. It was the quote the ref was to address. "In contrast with the Moroccan and Tunisian protectorates, Algeria was made an integral part of France and became a colony of settlement for more than one million Europeans... under colonial rule, Algerians encountered France's 'civilizing mission' only through the plundering of lands and colonial  apartheid society...." Could you return it outside the ref? I don't know when it was done, if my orig error or one of the changes made over the years, but it was not my intent..

the same applies to * "[the] senatus-consulte of 1865 stipulated that all the colonized indigenous were under French jurisdiction, i.e., French nationals subjected to French laws, but it restricted citizenship only to those who renounced their Muslim religion and culture. There was an obvious split in French legal discourse: a split between nationality and citizenship, which established the formal structures of a political apartheid encouraging the existence of 'French subjects' disenfranchised, without any rights to citizenship, treated as objects of French law and not citizens". and *  "Algeria was in fact a colony but constitutionally was a part of France and not thought of in the 1950s as a colony. It was a society of nine million or so 'Muslim' Algerians who were dominated by the million settlers  of diverse origins (but fiercely French) who maintained a quasi-apartheid regime". CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you have two big paragraphs quoted from the same page of a non-free source. just cite the source and move on. This article is already way too long. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey
Hello Chris - I am a bit confused by your recent change. Is it a mistake or what was the reason please?

Also if you are interested in the subject and have time might you be able to complete the good article review which seems to have stalled. I would like to know what else needs fixing before it can be a good article. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

URL–wikilink conflict
With you added a url parameter to a  template that also has a title-link parameter with assigned value. url and title-link both want to link the content of title but only one can. cs1|2 will automatically choose url but will also emit a error message because cs1|2 cannot know which is the better choice.

Please fix your tool or devote a bit more time to reviewing the edits that it makes so that I and others like me don't have to chase around cleaning up after you. Thanks.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it's not my tool. oabot has it's own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Capoccia (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I've long since reported this problem at the bot's title=_when_adding_|pmc=|talk page. You can see there how unsuccessful I was in persuading the maintainers that the bot is doing bad things.  That is why I also asked you to devote a bit more time to reviewing the edits that [the bot] makes when you are driving it.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks agaiin
Chris thank you so much for your patience, generosity and forgiveness in clearng up my clumsy edits. Big thanks. JCJC777 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Textile finishing
Respected Sir, I have recently made some changes in the subject article. Kindly see and advice. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article really needs citations to support claims and not just rewording. — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations were there. []. Thanks for your reply and the guidance.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have some queries
Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking time to go through my edits in the Cannabis in Brunei article. However, I do have some questions about your edits towards the in-text citations/endnotes and references. I am just a learner, so I appreciate all your help and would like to know why my sourcing were incorrect. Respectfully, what was your reason for removing the page numbers in the endnotes? Also, why did you change the citations to adjust the way the authors names are written (I cited the sources in Turabian Style)? –KatKucing (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * in my mind if a book chapter or a journal article is being cited with a page range, it is of limited value to split the citations into multiple citations just so the citation can precisely note a specific page. Additionally with the citation to the "misuse of drugs act", page numbers depend on formatting and don't make sense for the more accessible web page view. citation templates are much easier to manage and make sure they are correct because there are tools like citation bot and oa bot that will help with details and add parameters. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Chris, thank you for your extensive help with the upgrade of the citatations in Vladimir Zelenko article. Much appreciated. Happy New Year!! IZAK (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Baieroxylon
I just wanted to say that I reverted your most recent edits on Baieroxylon because it seemed that you were vandalizing (especially hard to tell without an edit summary). If this was not vandalism please edit the article again with a explanatory edit summary. Thank you! Sungodtemple (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * no idea what you think in this diff qualifies as vandalism. — Chris Capoccia 💬 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Just wanted to thank you for the work you do here every now and then! 201.198.177.120 (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Expanding OAbot usage
Hello, thank you for your continued contributions with the OAbot tool! You might have noticed that we are now refreshing the queue more often, but there are many edits left to do so we always need more users. As a developer of the tool I'm kinda biased, so I was thinking whether you could recommend the tool to some other users: I think a simple user talk page message would do a lot! Possible interested users might include the |table|last-month|(editor_type)~user+(page_type)~content|monthly most active editors in the month, I think. Nemo 14:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keeping you informed
Greetings,

I had initiated a very very slow process multi round discussion @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam

Keeping you informed since came across your user name in contribution stats of the article Apostasy in Islam

Join in discussion if you find yourself interested in. Also pl. do ignore it if it has been cross posted by mistake owing to long gap between communications on the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please leave edit summaries on your edits. For example, in your recent edits to Mersenne number, I had to look through the edits carefully to verify that you were not some vandal simply deleting text. — Anita5192 (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * so vandals leaving clever summaries get a free pass and you don't look at the diff? — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would have looked anyway, but I can usually understand the edit faster if the user explains what it was for.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad edit. Please fix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nucleoside_triphosphate&diff=956460226&oldid=956460161 --50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * not a "bad edit". i was prepping for cleanup with citation bot. you need to look at the diff for multiple edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nucleoside_triphosphate&type=revision&diff=956460332&oldid=952369098  — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this continued cleanup work! Nemo 14:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder what's good about that edit deleting the authors and title of the cited work? I now see that the citation bot put 'em back.  My mistake.  I saw several of these destructive-seeming edits, and don't see the point.  I guess I missed the work of the citation bot there too?  --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the deletion of sundry URLs from citations - containing academic.oup, marinemammal, biology.leeds, archive, arizona, cornell, sekj etc. I don't see that a citation bot has put them back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lek_mating&type=revision&diff=1020106470&oldid=1018475636 And there's no edit summary. Again, please use the edit summary box. Appropriately.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * URLs that go to the same place as the DOI are redundant and should be eliminated. There is also parameter doi-access=free for when the DOI takes you to full access that provides the link for the title or pmc parameter. populating URL with a redundant link prevents linking by parameter and can result in link rot. — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explained at greater length before, with an example, eliminating URLs makes citations brittle. Again, please stop eliminating them.  Can you expand on your last sentence?  I don't understand. And again, can you please use the edit summary box? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * lol citation needed? Digital object identifier is way more stable than URL. Is there a recognized citation style that prefers URL over DOI? https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/internet_references/urls_vs_dois.html  — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "prevents linking by parameter"? CN.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if the DOI is provides free access to full article, you can add parameter doi-access=free and it will link the title. if you want to force the title link even when DOI does not provide free access to full article, you can add parameter title-link=doi. see HELP:CS1. — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get the gist. But please respond to this:
 * I didn't say don't add DOIs. I said DON'T remove URLs like you did. Again, eliminating URLs makes citations brittle. See: Citation given already at Teahouse.  FS.  (And I strongly urged you to retract your accusation that the 14 URLs you removed, mostly to academic institutions, and likely mostly authorized or fair use, are all copyvio links.  But I see you didn't.)  And again, can you please use the edit summary box? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Acne does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! -- Renat 17:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary reminder
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Bot cleanup on Levantine Arabic
Hi, You did a "clean up" on the Levantine Arabic but I'm not convinced by it's results:
 * Links to worldcat (generated by Wikipedia's citation tool) were removed
 * ISSN were removed
 * Many refs lost all meaningful information, for instance:
 * was changed into

I don't want to check each modification one by one but this looks like a massacre more than a clean up.

Can I revert your edits? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (It also added some "page needed" tags that don't make sense, like when the whole book is cited to give its reference.) A455bcd9 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Worldcat URL is redundant to oclc parameter. ISSN is redundant when there are already more precise parameters like DOI. Brilonline URLs are redundant to DOIs although I do need to fix up those as they should have been transformed by the bot into cite book with all the correct bibliographic info. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * Some dates were removed, for instance:
 * Became:
 * Or:
 * Became:
 * Is there any reason for that?
 * I think I only use Wikipedia's integrated citation tool (I put the doi and it generates the citation) so I expected that tool to export citations in the correct format. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't sure what to do with the dates for all the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics citations. The Brill page says stuff like "First published online: 2011" for them, do we really know what the date is for these? for The Oxford Handbook of Arab Novelistic Traditions, normally print books are cited by year alone. Also when you follow that DOI, it says "Print Publication Date: Oct 2017… Online Publication Date: Aug 2017", so the only thing consistent is the year. — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For Brill the date was generated by Wikipedia's citation tool when I entered the URL. So I guess somewhere on the page or on a database the date "30 May 2011" is given? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for that?
 * I think I only use Wikipedia's integrated citation tool (I put the doi and it generates the citation) so I expected that tool to export citations in the correct format. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't sure what to do with the dates for all the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics citations. The Brill page says stuff like "First published online: 2011" for them, do we really know what the date is for these? for The Oxford Handbook of Arab Novelistic Traditions, normally print books are cited by year alone. Also when you follow that DOI, it says "Print Publication Date: Oct 2017… Online Publication Date: Aug 2017", so the only thing consistent is the year. — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For Brill the date was generated by Wikipedia's citation tool when I entered the URL. So I guess somewhere on the page or on a database the date "30 May 2011" is given? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Demographics of sexual orientation
Just wanted to inform you that user Crossroads is engaging in edit waring and may invite you to talk page if he reverts again.Foorgood (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Chris, don't you think it's a bit odd that Foorgood wants to single out this one statistic from a large database? And claim that the US has the most MSM in the world based on a dataset that excludes the world's most populated country, China? Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * all i wanted to do was fix up the formatting of references. not actually qualified or very interested in trying to edit content or research review articles to decide what claims should be made. — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)