This is an archive of past discussions with User:YorkshireLad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Telfordbuck (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am Acumen32 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) . The user who edited indirect taxes on August 12, 2019. I am not very proficient using talk pages, so excuse me if I wrote in the wrong place or using wrong format.
Now regarding the article that I had edited, it was an unbiased fact that applies to all the countries which levy indirect taxes. The burden of taxes is shifted from businessmen, when they raise prices. At the end it is transferred to end consumer. As it is in indirect form, it is distributed in the end consumer indiscriminately. This has a negative impact on poor households which cannot even pay direct taxes, which are living hand to mouth. But they do have to end up paying indirect taxes. This is a major flaw of indirect tax which cannot be neglected. These are all facts.
I would like to know how you view this as being biased. Looking forward to your reply and also tell me proper way of replying on talk pages.
Hiya! I'll start by saying I'm pretty new here too (in terms of edits if not time since I made the account), and thanks for your message. You're in the right place, but I've just moved the post lower down the page so it doesn't appear with the welcome message above.
I'll admit, it was borderline, and looking back I might have been a bit hasty removing it instead of just leaving you a message or something. I can tell you why I thought it was not Neutral Point of View at the time: the combination of phrasing like "But it's major flaw", and the fact that it was unsourced (i.e. no citations). I think possibly more relevant is the fact that even if NPOV, I'd argue it's Original Research—everything you said seems to be true, but content needs to be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia, and that's especially important for contentious/political things where someone could dispute it. (Even then, ideally everything that's not completely obvious should have a citation—for instance, on the page on the United Kingdom, the fact "The United Kingdom consists of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland" has a citation, even though it's unlikely to be contested.)
Anyway, if you wanted to add the content back but with citations from reliable sources for people who make those points, I suspect nobody would revert it. Alternatively, perhaps add the material to the article's talk page and see what other people think? YorkshireLad (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
, but before that would have to do even more research, so would do it after my exams ending on 19th because I don't even know how they make headings in wikipedia, so first I would have to read up on all that before doing my research. Thanks for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acumen32 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you sent the wrong person a message about a recent edit.
Hello! I've moved your message down the page, I hope that's okay. Just a note: you should sign comments on talk pages by typing four tildes so it's obvious who's sending them (I also forget sometimes…).
I suspect you didn't make the edit to the page "Suicide watch" that I reverted (some time ago now!). You can see your IP address's recent contributions by clicking the link in the heading for this section, though, and you'll see the edit I reverted there. (Apologies for not having indicated the page on your talk page; I normally do in the template I posted.
If it wasn't you, it must have been someone else who shares your IP address (which can happen for a whole host of reasons, such as editing from a mobile, being on a school/university/work network, etc.). There's not a lot I (or Wikipedia) can do about that, unfortunately; if someone needs to message someone editing from your IP address that's the only way to get through to them. If you find that irrelevant messages like that annoy you, though, you can create an account—see WP:ACCOUNT for more details. YorkshireLad (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Steelehill12: Hi! I've moved your message further down the page to keep things in order, hope that's okay. I don't know either George Hill, I'm sorry to say, so I'll have to take your word for it that the current picture is wrong. In which case, it's fine to change it, but the edit you made deleted the entire infobox with GRH's biographical details, which is why I reverted it. To make the change you wanted to make, you should simply replace the text "George Roy Hill (1970).jpg" in the current version of the article with the name of the file you want to add instead, which is "George Roy Hill.jpg" (without the quotes), and likewise change the caption. That will preserve all the other information, like his dates of birth/death. YorkshireLad (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Steelehill12: Hi again, I've properly sussed out the situation now. It seems various people have tried to remove that image, and then various other people have put it back. I've changed the image out for the one you uploaded, as you attempted. I hope that's okay, and thank you very much for providing the image.
By the way, I'm guessing from your username and the fact that you took the photo that you're related to George Roy Hill? If so, and you want to edit the page further, do have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, just to make sure you've made any necessary disclosures. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireLad! You created a thread called Copyright claim at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I could not find the "Add Topic" button despite a word search.
I intend fully to comply with your requirements. I had not thought about it, but you are correct about the conflict of interest. I will make no further changes without getting it to you first for judgment and advice. My intention is to develop an external citation source, update the page with pictures, and then I will pass these onto you for adjudication. thank-you Julian Julian Spencer-Churchill (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Julian Spencer-Churchill: Thanks for the baklava! You certainly don't have to put things to me personally for approval, I should say: I have no more authority here than anyone else. The best thing to do is to comment on the talk page of the article in question (you should see a talk link at the top of the page), and then anyone who looks at that (or anyone "watching" the article) can see your suggestions. That said, I'm more than happy to try to help, so you are very welcome to come back to me if you like (I should see anything you put here—and you put this message in exactly the right place, don't worry! But if you come back and this section is gone, it's been automatically archived, so just start a new section like you did today).
If you have pictures you'd like to share, by the way, the guidelines are somewhat looser for those (essentially because otherwise it would be almost impossible to obtain pictures of a lot of things). You can find out more about that on the guidance page for image uploads; the main requirements are permission from the copyright-holder, and willingness of that person to license the photo under an appropriate licence that allows general re-use. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
@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.
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Would it be alright if I deleted this section and the "Edits on Young blood transfusion section" from your talk page? We've moved our discussion to the young blood transfusion talk page. Please respond on my talk page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but please leave it here—both to preserve the beginning of this conversation for anyone who links back from the article talk page (I linked here from there for a reason) and because I have an automated archiving script set up (so this will eventually be removed and moved to the archive, when the script determines my page is "overfull"). Thanks. YorkshireLad (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Haha, nice! Mine was originally "Yorkshire Gold", named after the tea, but I realised it might look like a WP:PROMONAME so I requested a change. I am from Yorkshire, though, even if I don't work for the tea company. YorkshireLad (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi YorkshireLad! You created a thread called Contact with article's source—COI? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hi YorkshireLad! You created a thread called Chicago 'L' articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
On 14 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pride in STEM, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pride in STEM wants to "queer up science spaces and science up queer spaces"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pride in STEM. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pride in STEM), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, YorkshireLad. You have new messages at Sparkle1's talk page. Message added User:Sparkle1. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You made a wholesale editorial redaction of all materials added, including those materials which have external (i.e., non-wiki) sources which comply with wiki policies (e.g., Stanford University, Time Magazine, American Society for Apheresis, and U.S. FDA).
Hi. I did change my suggestion on the Articles for Deletion page so that the article was "Draftified": i.e., converted into a page with the prefix "Draft" so it could continue being worked on. Alas it was to no avail; I'm sorry it didn't work out better.
I can't access deleted pages as a non-admin, but admins can; if you'd like a copy of the content so you can keep working on it, and maybe submit it to be recreated as an article, you may be able to get it by leaving a message on the talk page of the administrator who closed the AfD (their user name will be linked after the bit that says "The result was delete"). You'd probably need to create an account before you did that though, because if they agreed they'd want to restore it to your "user space", which only registered users have (for instance, my user space is anything with a prefix "User:YorkshireLad/", like User:YorkshireLad/sandbox). YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)10:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
JWB
You are correct it does not present a warning, I apparently did not always pay attention either, sorry about that and thank you for the heads up, I'll have to add some logic to not add a second identical parameter. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the syntax on my reports. I am not the most experienced in that regard but am learning and as such greatly appreciate the gesture. Xeed.rice (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xeed.rice: You're very welcome! (If you're interested, because I forgot to explain: the reason why a problem on that page triggers problems on so many others is that a lot of pages "transclude" WP:AIV—that is, they essentially treat it as a template, and include its contents wholesale, automatically updating as people add reports to the page. That means that a duplicate template argument (which was the error being generated by that particular syntax) is detected by the software on all those other pages too.) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi YorkshireLad, thank you for the knowledge about how pings work. It makes sense that it'd be tied to a signature; let's see if I can get it this time: @YorkshireLad:! In the special case you mentioned of going back to make a correction and needing to re-add one's signature to allow the pings to work... does that mean you'd need to delete the first signature (i.e. type over it) when making a minor correction or would you simply sign separately for a second time?
MitzvahCode, Hi! So there are some more details on Template:Ping, but my understanding is that you'd need to add a completely new line in that case for it to work—that is, write something like
Ping didn't work; pinging {{u|MitzvahCode}} again properly. ~~~~
This message seems to have been the right syntax to ping me, but I can't tell because any post on someone's user talk page notifies them, whether there's a link to a user name or not. (Incidentally, do you know about User:Enterprisey/reply-link? It's a script that adds a "reply" link on many pages; it (usually) automatically adds the ping to the person you're replying to and a signature, though you do need to check it's worked with the "Preview" button it gives you. It's what I used for this message, for instance.) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireLad! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, AfD and canvassing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
.jpg)
