Jump to content

User talk:YorkshireLad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 210.6.209.89 (talk) at 09:46, 6 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you'd like to leave me a message, please put it at the bottom of the page, in a new section. You can do this easily by clicking the "Add topic" button at the top of the page. Thanks! YorkshireLad (talk)

Can you please vet my new entry

Hello Yorkshire lad,

we spoke in Nov 2019.

I have a new entry I would like to add to the wikipedia entry "Talk:Jack Churchill (1880–1947)". It is posted on the talk page at the moment, and entitled: "Genetic Evidence of John Churchill's Paternity."

Because I have a conflict of interest, I am seeking you out to confirm if it conforms with the standards of wikipedia.

thank-you,

Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Spencer-Churchill (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian Spencer-Churchill: Hi Julian, apologies that this has taken so long (doctoral studies and other real-life things got in the way!). That looks really interesting; what you'd need to be able to add it to Wikipedia, is an external source for it. If it's original research you've done, it might be worth having a look at WP:OR. Of course, there is nothing stopping you adding it to the page—Wikipedia is, after all, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"! But if someone found it and deduced that it was original research, it might be removed.
Of course, the other thing you can do is place it on a website of your own; Google Sites is a good option for that, in my opinion, since it's completely free to use. YorkshireLad (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:AC, but blocked the IP. Someone editing from their cell phone vs. their university isn't really socking, but they were continuing to be disruptive, so blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry about that… I did wonder when I was submitting it if it counted as sockpuppetry, but WP:BOLD and all that.  :-) YorkshireLad (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. SPIs filed under IP names are just my personal pet peeve (we'll never keep track of them and 99% of the time no one sees it until it is too late... plus most of the time it's just a dynamic IP.) But from a practical standpoint, AIV is usually quicker... I just saw an IP SPI on the IRC feed and swooped in to close it :P TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Young blood transfusion

Got your message. The edit was factual. You reverted a factual edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@210.6.209.89: The information that you removed that I reverted seems to be backed up by the Scientific American source. (That there was no control is confirmed by the link therin to the clinical trial page on ClinicalTrials.gov [1]; admittedly this wasn't on the page as a source, but I've added it now.) The information you added wasn't backed up by a reliable source, but did contain a link to ambrosiaplasma.com, which made me suspect you were using Wikipedia for promotional purposes: this is not allowed. In addition, if you do have a connection to Ambrosia, you should explicitly disclose it when editing, though you are strongly discouraged from editing pages you have such a connection to in the first place. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. There was no placebo, but there was a control group. I am going to continue editing the page to correct the information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source from ClinicalTrials.gov (with information provided by Ambrosia!) says that the method used was "Single Group Assignment", which the website's glossary describes as "A type of intervention model describing a clinical trial in which all participants receive the same intervention/treatment." YorkshireLad (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information you quote doesn't mention the word control at all. You are misinterpreting the description you quote. The study had a control. There are numerous articles on the internet describing that Ambrosia's clinical trial had a control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"There are numerous articles on the internet describing that Ambrosia's clinical trial had a control." If you can link to one—by which I mean a reliable, independent source—then I would happily add it. I did try searching on Google for "Ambrosia clinical trial control", and I indeed found numerous articles, but only ones that state that the trial did not have a control, e.g.:
  • Quartz: "The results are extremely preliminary; they not published in a peer-reviewed, and there was no control study." [2]
  • The Guardian: "The scientific community has rolled its eyes at the “trial” element of Ambrosia. There is no control group" [3]
However, I did find an article in Science (arguably one of the two most prestigious journals in existence) [4], which says "With physiological measurements taken before and after treatment, each person will serve as their own control, [the study's investigator] explains." I don't really want, at this point, to get into a discussion about how scientifically valid this is, but I have therefore changed the relevant statement to read "there was no control group" (emphasis added), which is a claim that can be verified repeatedly. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Together Again (TV series)

Salvagable or WP:PROD it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. There's no evidence that it meets WP:GNG, you're right, but it does seem to meet WP:NTV (simply by virtue of being a British TV programme). Perhaps worth waiting for the outcome of the AfD on Essex Wives before PRODding? YorkshireLad (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Edits

I have added 16 requested edits to the young blood transfusion talk page. Would you please make these edits, or respond on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see other editors have already replied to these requested edits, and I don't have anything more to add. I will keep an eye on the talk page. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you are trying to address the requested edits. There is still an issue. The study had a control arm. I would be happy to explain the difference between a control, control arm, and placebo. If you would like, please respond on my talk page or the young blood transfusion talk page.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YorkshireLad&oldid=944199667"