User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2024
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Andy Dingley. 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. |
| Archive 2020 | ← | Archive 2022 | Archive 2023 | Archive 2024 |
Hi Andy, hope you are well. Thanks for the image you provided some time ago. I have now added to his article. I expect you will have heard about his passing in December? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes thanks, Yes, sad to hear about Wilf. I didn't know him well myself, but we had a few friends in common.
- I'd probably have added that photo years ago, except it's such a poor photo (taken right into the Sun). I'll see if I've any other releasable photos. There used to be some more up, but they were deleted for being 'promotional'. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- How ridiculous. Yesm not the best picture, but I thought it was better than nothing for the main body. Not a huge article anyway, but a gallery would be very nice if there were images available. A great British eccentric, not unlike that other one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Maersk Hangzhou
An article that you have been involved in editing—Maersk Hangzhou—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Sock rv
Just curious about this - is this IP a confirmed sock? Just appears a little odd as they’re still editing away freely… surely if you suspect they’re a sock it should be taken to SPI? Danners430 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Take it to SPI if you wish. But what's the point? They'll just get blocked (they're already blocked) until they reboot their router. Or (worse) some admin will issue another of those massive rangeblocks and take out half of Lancashire.
- But the editing style is pure Moylsey and the IP locates to Sefton. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Might be worth a poke… Moylsey isn't someone I've come across so I don't know their style Danners430 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Andy Dingley! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |  |
Category:Political posters of Italy has been nominated for merging
Category:Political posters of Italy has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring at the Norden bombsight article
Greetings Andy. The persistent editor at that page is not getting the picture. The term tachometric belongs. Its linked. It needs elaboration in the body. (See edit summaries in page history.) Thought you'd like to know. 2601:196:180:DC0:F420:CBC4:36C1:1932 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Andy Dingley,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
re [1] - I don't think the commons link is useful, since not every photo in this Commons category will show this type of girder. I would encourage you to create a new, more specific, Commons category there instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
"Red Flag (nuclear weapon)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Red Flag (nuclear weapon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 23 § Red Flag (nuclear weapon) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Andy. My apologies - I triggered the 3RR when removing the facebook sourced material and I rolled back my own edit after the summary got mangled. See my entry on the talk page. Springnuts (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- One could argue if this is currently 2RR or 5RR. But you're certainly edit-warring. All on an article where a 1RR restriction might too be argued as being in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point. The original revert was of the IP edits when the status was changed to “on fire” and then the tense changed to “was a ship …”. I failed to notice that your edits were more nuanced. Time will tell whether this news is true or not. Springnuts (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not seeing any RS of anything at all actually having happened here - just a bare assertion picked up and repeated (and overlinked). Do you still feel that this is noteworthy? Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you expect any updates? Levchenko is still at sea (burning or not) and no-one outside will know until she's back to Severmorsk. At which point this uncertainty collapses to either confirming the fire, or giving a slant on fake Ukrainian propaganda (which isn't something they've used so far). But as yet, we don't know, and there's no change since the first news. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I minded to ask for a third-party opinion about whether this information should be in the article at the moment. Would you find that helpful? Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley, you obviously feel very strongly that this should stay in the article: what do you think about a third opinion? Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You would always be at liberty to seek one.
- But your repeated deletions of this have argued it on the basis of inadequate sourcing, which is untrue. The sourcing needs two sources to be cited, the primary one from Pletenchuk and a competent secondary commentary on that. The Kyiv Independent is entirely adequate for that. We don't even need all the others that were added, they simply duplicate this.
- We still don't know the state of the ship. Not that we can't reliably source a rumour, we just have no idea at all. There (AFAIK) has been no further comment made from either Ukraine or Russia. A lack of denial from Russia (even AFAIK on Russian Telegram) is surprising, if it's really unaffected or the fire was minor. But as yet, still we just don't know. Until we do know, we shouldn't make major changes to this content, in either way.
- The point is that the Pletenchuk claim is still significant enough to belong here, whether it's true or false. It isn't even the first major Russian ship fire, but as a piece of black propaganda from Ukraine it would be exceptional if it turns out to be a false claim. Obviously a major edit would be needed, but only if it turns up soon without any fire damage!
- If you think that the claim is false (which is pure WP:OR) then I wouldn't object if you added that. Once we have any indications one way or the other, we certainly should. But what we can't do is undo the statements that have happened so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley, you obviously feel very strongly that this should stay in the article: what do you think about a third opinion? Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I minded to ask for a third-party opinion about whether this information should be in the article at the moment. Would you find that helpful? Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you expect any updates? Levchenko is still at sea (burning or not) and no-one outside will know until she's back to Severmorsk. At which point this uncertainty collapses to either confirming the fire, or giving a slant on fake Ukrainian propaganda (which isn't something they've used so far). But as yet, we don't know, and there's no change since the first news. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not seeing any RS of anything at all actually having happened here - just a bare assertion picked up and repeated (and overlinked). Do you still feel that this is noteworthy? Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point. The original revert was of the IP edits when the status was changed to “on fire” and then the tense changed to “was a ship …”. I failed to notice that your edits were more nuanced. Time will tell whether this news is true or not. Springnuts (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Deletion to German language wiki page, why?
There are times when the English language pages are inadequate or sparse, and a foreign language wiki page is more articulate. That is why I posted the link. Not in the body. But at the bottom in the Further Reading section. It is innocuous and generous, not malicious or meanspirited. TW Maple leaf eh (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is for Sd.Kfz. 2 and [2].
- We already link to the German language wiki article. You pasted in a link that firstly didn't work (and you clearly didn't check whether it worked), so was basically useless. Also you did it in a way that explained how Wikipedia and auto-translation works, in the confines of an already too-short encyclopedia article on Kettenkrad.
- But mostly, this just isn't our practice for articles. I'm sure the German language articles on Berlin or Sachertorte are better than our English language ones too, yet we don't add paragraph-long footnotes explaining how to use Wikipedia, and we don't add that same footnote to every likely article. We do already link to the German article; this is stored in Wikidata and adds to Wikipedia pages automatically. That's considered sufficient (by our established practice in editing many, many articles).
- If you're suggesting that editors might benefit from using the German article to expand the Wikipedia article here on the English language Wikipedia, then there's a templates for that: {{Expand German}}. Such an expansion is much better (because it gives an expanded and more useful article in the place they're already at) than simply pointing editors at foreign-language sources and telling them to auto-translate. But even that's rarely needed, as for many such articles (like Berlin, Sachertorte and indeed Kettenkrad) it's obvious and implicit. But there are a few unexpected ones, where the German language version just happens to be remarkably good. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't feel like arguing. Your mind seems closed and you managed to tell me off enough times to not want me to care anymore. TW Maple leaf eh (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
On gun motor carriages and such
Andy, if you think a proper discussion is worth having, feel free to start one at a place of your choice, preferably where it will get noticed (as opposed to my talk page). An RM to capitalize some of those would be one option. Or ask for my moves to be reverted, and I'll open an RM, as I said before. Or open it at a project talk page. Don't start with a personal attack, but with some actual information about why you think capitalization would be appropriate, in light of guidelines, sources, or whatever. A tangent inside an unrelated RM, full of your personal attacks, it not going to be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, you did also start one at Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Undiscussed page move. But then you've ignored my attempt to engage on the question there. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
Hello, I'm Dicklyon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page M18 Hellcat that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your CIR edit summary was nothing but personal, gave no info on why you reverted me. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your unnecessary personal crusade against all capitalisation is not an excuse to introduce real errors into articles. Especially not when you're edit-warring to keep re-making them. If you can't do it right, don't do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could say what error I introduced instead of just calling me incompetent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not call you incompetent. Please do not fabricate things, just so that you can try and construct another fatuous ANI filing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did I misinterpret your use of WP:CIR in your edit summary? Sorry, I did overlook the words before that, which were informative; fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not call you incompetent. Please do not fabricate things, just so that you can try and construct another fatuous ANI filing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could say what error I introduced instead of just calling me incompetent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse copyvio questioner
Noticed your response to this Teahouse comment about a claimed copyright violation. You wrote that it "isn't particularly a problem, as your edits have fixed that", implying in your next comment that WP:REVDEL is optional after deleting the edits containing copied content. But that is a misunderstanding of copyright policy. Removing the offending edits did not fix the problem, and REVDEL is not optional, if the edits are confirmed copyvio. Instead, we should tell copyvio questioners that they should tag the article with one of the copyvio templates, which will attract the attention of volunteers who can investigate further, and if confirmed, carry out the revdel.
No page at Wikipedia, whether it be article, Draft, user page, template, or anything else may house copyrighted content, and that includes old pages that can be found in the history. That is the whole point of REVDEL: to take them out of the history as well, so the copyrighted content is no longer accessible from Wikipedia anywhere, period. Copyright policy is one of our policies with legal implications that stems from the Terms of use and local law, and can never be ignored. Going forward, please advise users asking about suspected or confirmed copyvio to tag the article with one of the copyvio templates mentioned at WP:COPYVIO such as {{copypaste}}, and volunteers will show up to take care of it. If it turns out to be a copy violation, those edits will be revdel'ed, as these edits were, a short while later. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was no copyvio in the article. Their edit had fixed it. There is no point in copyvio tagging an article that's not an issue, that's just likely to have the article deleted altogether.
- There was only a marginal copyvio in the first place. It wasn't good writing and it would fail our standards for 'close precis', but it was also so short that it's arguable as to whether it was ever truly a copyvio in the first place.
- I told them to revdel it anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Perrycroft
A note to thank you for your Perrycroft uploads, which I have now used here. Hope you like the article. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's a nice book, very useful for our purposes. I really must get round to scanning the other half of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank God
I was beginning to think that while I wasn't paying attention, some disease had killed of all the people with a modicum of sense. EEng 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or to follow sacred policies to the letter? There's a reason I'm not a rabbi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for adhering to policy. It's people who insist on adherence to policies they don't understand that get my goat. Perhaps you didn't notice, but this guy's been trying to edit war this one word out for EIGHT years. EEng 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. And check this [3] out.
"Ivorine" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Ivorine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 16 § Ivorine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Since we can't seem to discuss anything in a civil manner...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Note - I won't be responding here or on my own talk page while this is open. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- On this particular topic, looks like there's actually been some movement elsewhere that looks like it'll probably satisfy everyone - sub-referencing... does away with the need for both SFN/Harvb tags and bibiographies, and {{r}} and {{rp}} templates... thoughts? Danners430 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Crank in rotary mills
Hi Andy Dingley! Recently you deleted my contribution, because you said the sources didn't support my claims. Here you have a summary from sources(no verbatim, no copyright violation), to show my sources support my claims. I claim:
- -That the rotary hand mill comes from Spain, between 6th and 5th BCE
- -That a rotary hand mill is a crank
- Source 1
- "Moliendo en ibero, moliendo en griego»: aculturación y resistencia tecnológica en el Mediterráneo occidental durante la Edad del Hierro"
- -Page 23 names the device, as rotary hand mill
- -In page 25 Figure 1C, there's a drawing of rotary hand mill
- -In page 28 describes the rotary hand mill, composed of two circular stones and a handle/crank (depending on the translation)
- -In page 29 says the rotary hand mill is an Iberian invention(Iberian were natives of Spain before Roman conquest)
- -In page 29 dates the invention between 6th and 5th BCE
- -In page 30 says the rotary mill expanded from Spain to East(Greece and Middle East)
- My Source 2
- "A Relief of a Water-powered Stone Saw Mill on a Sarcophagus at Hierapolis and its Implications", Journal of Roman Archaeology"
- -Page 158 says the rotary hand mill emerged in Spain in the 5th BCE and expanded East(Greece) and North(France)
- -Page 159 says the rotary hand mill is a crank. With the handle being the crank and the person's arm being the connecting rod
- My Source 3
- Lucas 2005, p. 5, fn. 9
- -Says: the rotary quern is a crank
- Wikipedia already contains my very same claim( with the same sources:):
- -Crank page picture. Description: "Tibetan operating a quern (1938). The upright handle of such rotary handmills, set at a distance from the centre of rotation, works as a crank."[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]
- -Crankshaft page picture. Description: "Querns are a form of hand-operated crank"[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]
- Both pages:
- -"The Chinese used not just the crank, but the crank-and-connecting rod for operating querns"[Source: Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering, p118-119]
- Compare to my claim:
- -My Source 1: Verbal description and depiction of a device, identical to the pictured above, a rotary hand mill with a handle.[My Source 2][My Source 3]. See summary above for pages.
- Why is the same device a crank in one place but not in other?
- New source: Source 4
- Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering
- -Page 186 says: the rotary hand mill or quern, with the eccentric handle, it's a crank
#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-BB-152-11,_Tibetexpedition,_Tibeter_mit_Handmühle.jpg){kind=link}
Wikain (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Spartan
I see you are also involved with Draft:Spartan Cars, which was draftified by the deletionist cabal. I have blue chip newspaper references which I will add as soon as I get a chance, after which I think we should submit. Any thoughts? Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that if you're looking for collaboration and support against "the deletionist cabal", then you would be well to not describe editors as "vandal"s whilst you're deleting their articles.
- See WP:ANI#WP:OWN, with personal attack and vandalism accusation by Mr.choppers Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
5 Sep 2024
Do you want to post diffs for bad moves at ANI? Sammy D III (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a big point. Certainly it ought to be reverted via WP:RM/TR. Maybe if I do that I'll just get posted to ANI again as 'disruptive'. (Oh sorry, didn't really mean that, it just slipped out. Oops.)
- But overall, this is all a bit of a lost cause. It's a fashion parade, not anything about sourcing. At least it's not quite as bad as the original mess at Motor Torpedo Boat where it actually changed the scope of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, your world, your call. I'm sure not popular. I reverted something at Land Rover whatever using the word "bad faith", maybe someone will notice one way or the other. I've got nothing to lose, every time I come back I have to shake my head longer. Sigh. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk)
- Is there a reason a notification hasn't been posted to MILHIST? Sammy D III (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's no reason that it needs to be (as policy, like notifying ANI'ed users), but equally it certainly could.
- However WP is losing so many editors these days that most projects are moribund. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Rematch is almost ready. Here a hint: 5-22. No reply needed. Sammy D III (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a reason a notification hasn't been posted to MILHIST? Sammy D III (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, your world, your call. I'm sure not popular. I reverted something at Land Rover whatever using the word "bad faith", maybe someone will notice one way or the other. I've got nothing to lose, every time I come back I have to shake my head longer. Sigh. Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk)
MOS question
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Regarding the links to German coal mines in de.wiki, I am asking for clarification. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Arsenical bronze
The article is tagged as being in US English, and was in a mixture of both spellings. I've raised it at talk; I really don't mind which spelling is used, but it annoys me seeing the same words spelled two different ways in one article. John (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this getting rather ridiculous? The paragraph you have restored bears little relevance to the topic. It is an opinion piece well pre-dating the events, and is of more relevance to a page on Bill Smith or on the Ruskin Museum rather than a page on Bluebird. That comment could also be applied to most of what has recently been added. The page is clearly becoming a battle-ground between warring factions. I suggest the page could usefully be split so that the original undisputed information up to and including the accident which claimed Donald Campbell's life is retained with a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin, and the rest is removed for possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith if such is considered suitable. Sooty655 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked one month)
- Whatever the 'ridiculous' aspect of the content, that is 6RR edit warring.
- Now maybe the paragraph does indeed have little relevance to the topic. But that's something to sort out by discussion at the article talk:, not by edit-warring and then following editors to their own user talk pages to browbeat them individually. Maybe I could have been convinced by such an argument (certainly it's not the most important aspect of K7's history). But as a tactic to switch to only after a month's block on the simple edit warring account, when that approach failed? No. Not a convincing argument.
"a small final paragraph stating the wreck was recovered, restored and is displayed at Ruskin"
- You mean this edit ? Was that you?
possible inclusion in a page on Bill Smith
- You mean the page that's, once again, up for deletion and that you yourself are busy removing the links to? It would indeed be convenient to wrap all the non-Ruskin content into one bundle, pop it into a Bill Smith page and then delete that page! Problem solved and Ruskin / CFHT get all the credit.
- I don't understand the antipathy to Bill Smith on Wikipedia (OK, of course I do, I've been here long enough). But I don't understand antipathy to him from someone involved in a Vulcan preservation project? Whether he's a 'sonar search expert' or not, he achieved amazing results with the K7 rebuild. The Bill Smith article is justified just from that aspect. Will WP go after Owen Wyn Owen next? IMHO, the restoration part of K7 is every bit as interesting as its record-breaking history (and the article could still use more on the pre-'67 runs). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)