User talk:Nigel PG Dale

Nigel PG Dale, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nigel PG Dale! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Patera Building

The article Patera Building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section 'Innovations in Design and Manufacture' has been removed. I can live with that - the condensed article reads well enough. I have included some websites as current sources, and I have posted a single photo with added caption. If possible (DG) please remove == Proposed deletion of Patera Building ==

Thanks for your help.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article exists

At present, the article exists, and no one has submitted it to Articles for Deletion. Congrats on having created an article. I suggest you put it on your Watchlist (menu option, upper right), so that you are aware of edits going forward. But take care not to act as if you 'own' the article. I have no intention of editing the article in the future. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments

Remember to 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. This lets editors know who wrote what. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Patera Building

Hello, could you please clarify where the images on Patera Building came from? You've uploaded them marked as your 'own work', but (to my non-expert eye) the top image looks like a photograph or scan of a printed image? If that's the case, whose copyright is the original image?

Also, the building diagram looks like it might have come from some publication, given that it has the 'Fig.1' note included. The file description says "provided by Mark Whitby", but it's not clear what that means. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... it has the 'Fig.1' note included ... Yes, it was provided by Mark Whitby as it appears in the Publication Building with Steel (as referred to as a source) page 22. Whitby was the author of that article. I shall give photo credits with permissions for both of the other images. ~ ~ ~ ~

I'm no expert in what comes to copyright here, but if Mark Whitby is the copyright owner, you need to provide some evidence that he has allowed the image(s) to be placed freely in the public domain under commons licence. Just giving photo credits may not suffice. Also, I don't think you should upload images or other files as your own work, if they aren't in fact your own work. I'm going to comment out all the images in that article for now, until it has been somehow confirmed that they don't trespass on anyone's copyright; I trust you're okay with that. (PS: When you're replying on your talk page, I don't get alerted unless you 'ping' me.) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DG, I appreciate your concerns over copyright issues. I share your alarm when I see copyrighted material flying around on line. As a published author who deals regularly with © issues and permissions, I can assure you that I have permission to use these three images. The bottom one at Albert Island was taken in October 2020 by Colin Pugh, a lecturer at Manchester University School of Architecture. He has given, in writing, his permission to use his image. The top photo is a copy of one of hundreds given out in a press-release pack to coincide with the 1981 Interbuild Exhibition at the NEC. It was produced by the Longton Industrial Holdings Plc Publicity Dept with the express intention that it should be published. Finally, the Graphic by Mark Whitby is contained within one of the quoted sources, and thus, as long as it is correctly attributed, and I have permission from MW to use it - which I have, there can be little difference between this and quoting text from an attributed source. I don't see any requirement that only the © holder can post onto Wikimedia Commons. With permission, I find nothing wrong with my carrying out the mechanics of uploading these images. I take on board your concerns over © issues, but in this case you are pushing against an open door. Thanks for your help throughout. ps Please confirm that when I repost the above, you will leave them be. ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for your comments (and good thing I checked your talk page, since you're still not pinging me...). A few thoughts in response:

I wasn't so much commenting on whether you do or don't have permission to use the images; I was saying that without something to substantiate that, it's just your assertion, which isn't really enough. Or if the permission stems from a commons licence or similar, again that needs to be made clear.
Be that as it may, you shouldn't be describing things as your 'own work', when they're not; that right there is a violation of something. Saying that a piece of IP is your own work is not the same as saying that it's someone else's IP but that you have the owner's permission to use it.
Whether or not I will "leave them be" isn't really the point; if there is a copyright violation somewhere, and even if I do ignore it, doesn't resolve the problem, it just means that I'll be ignoring it. I really think this needs to be addressed at the source level, not within the article.

Regards, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This has no business in the article unless it can be completely referenced. Even if, it is about what the Patera Building is not, which is not relevant. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, point agreed, I'll fully reference this section. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patera Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Hunt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: High Tech Building Systems (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:High Tech Building Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:High Tech Building Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British High Tech architecture moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, British High Tech architecture, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patera Building structure moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Patera Building structure, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC) I'll continue to work on this as a draft Nigel PG Dale (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982 Hybrid Structure © Mark Whitby Graphic.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982 Hybrid Structure © Mark Whitby Graphic.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:High Tech Building Systems

Hello, Nigel PG Dale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:High Tech Building Systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Patera Building structure

Hello, Nigel PG Dale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patera Building structure".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hammerton Smith moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, William Hammerton Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article that can be added to by reference to reputable sources such as BBC News, national daily newspapers and specialist magazines covering the topic. Over a twenty-five year period, the subject Bill Smith went on to recover Bluebird K7 from the lakebed, rebuild it to the WSR specification and trial the craft on Loch Fad Isle of Bute in 2018. There will be no shortage of citations or links. Bluebird K7 has fourteen Wiki editors of which I am one. This article will draw on sources from many of those. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hammerton Smith (May 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Mostly not about the subject; none of the sources mention them;

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hammerton Smith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hammerton Smith (May 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hammerton Smith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:William Hammerton Smith has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hammerton Smith. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:William Hammerton Smith has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hammerton Smith. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of agreed terms of Bluebird K7 page

By changing ‘Restored Bluebird K7 and parts or any of them’, to ‘but engineless Bluebird K7 and parts’ you are misrepresenting legal agreement with bias towards your client William Hammerton Smith and the Bluebird Project. The publicly available Tomlin Order states that the defendants agree to transfer, with immediate effect to the Clamant all rights, title, and interest that they or either of them have in the Restored Bluebird K7 and the Parts and all of them. To continue to edit the Bluebird K7 page with bias and distortion of the public and legally available evidence, in an attempt to make a false truth to support a book you are involved with is a breach of wiki rules. 90.251.76.84 (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"... bias towards your client William Hammerton Smith and the Bluebird Project": Bill Smith is not a "client" of mine. I am not involved in any book about the history of K7 in cooperation with Bill Smith - he has undertaken to write an account of events himself in due course. It is an indisputable fact that Bluebird K7 was transported to Coniston in March 2024 without its engine. I have not broken any Wiki rules. Kindly desist from spreading false information and false accusations of my having broken Wiki rules.Nigel PG Dale 11:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel PG Dale

I support the initial poster of the information.

The Tomlin order states the following.

B. the Defendants: (William Hammerton Smith / Bluebird Project Ltd)

(1) shall bear their own costs of this action

(2) agree to transfer, with immediate effect to the Clamant all rights, title, and interest that they or either of them have in the Restored Bluebird K7 and THE PARTS AND ALL OF THEM;

(3) confirm that they nor either of them has any further right, title or interest in the Restored Bluebird K7 AND THE PARTS AND ALL OF THEM;

(4) agree that they, nor either of them, have any rights, claim nor causes of action against the Claimant of whatsoever nature;

Your bias towards ‘the defendants’ is clear to see by your continued attempts to minimise the facts of a legally agreed (and signed by both parties) document dated February 7th 2024 in

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AT NEWCASTLE PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)

Case ref PT-2023-NCL-000016

HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVIS-WHITE KC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court). 80.3.122.252 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of the Tonmlin order, does the museum have title over the Orpheus engine, owned by a third party but loaned to Bluebird Project for the purposes of running K7 on Loch Fad in 2018? If not, then the description "...the restored but engineless Bluebird K7..." is accurate. Nigel PG Dale 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tomlin order is clear on ALL PARTS AND ANY OF THEM excluding the engine:

‘New Parts: all parts obtained by, received by, made by, or purchased by, or on behalf of, the Defendants and or Kiltech Underwater Limited, save the Engine, forming any part of the Restored Bluebird K7’

Trying to minimise ‘the parts’ is an attempt at trying to hide what has had to be given up, which is everything sans the engine.

Smith and BBP no longer have claim nor rights to anything as per the Tomlin order.

Your bias is clearly shown by your personal posts via ‘X’

https://x.com/otboae/status/1802727923113148808?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1790279296394662107?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1802951765840523586?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1800286550279823376?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1801989042600370278?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1801262048258466225?s=61

https://x.com/otboae/status/1802778209504911689?s=61 80.3.122.252 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My description of "The case was settled without a full hearing after Smith decided to "walk away" resulting in a Tomlin order, which confirmed that neither Bill Smith or the Bluebird Project had any further right, title or interest in the restored but engineless Bluebird K7 and parts." is correct. Nigel PG Dale 13:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘All parts and any of them sans the engine’ would be more accurate and truthful. 80.3.122.252 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://x.com/otboae/status/1804530834990338483?s=61

No one is attacking you, we are posting the truth, but yet more evidence of your bias by complaining on the official bluebird project x pages. 80.3.122.252 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment begs the question who is the "we" in all of this as in "we are posting the truth"? Nigel PG Dale 15:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we are ‘the truth tellers’

we show what we say is the truth without conjecture 83.137.6.230 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are attacking me personally by spreading false information and making false accusations. a) that Bill Smith is a "client" of mine and b) that I am writing a book about all of this which you say breaks Wiki rules. I'm not writing a book about it, and Bill Smith is not a client of mine - in fact I have never met him. Please withdraw these smears. Nigel PG Dale 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No smears, just truth.

Your connection to Bill Smith and the BBP is well established and confirmed by your many ‘X’posts. You are not unbiased 83.137.6.230 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird Project and Bill Smith have been central to the Bluebird K7 story from 1996 until 2023. The Bluebird K7 Wiki page is tied up with BBP's involvement over that period whether you like it or not. All my points of information are correctly cited. Nigel PG Dale 17:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As are our corrections that you try to undo.

As of this moment the Civil Litigation section is truthful and accurate.

’Civil litigation

On 24 February 2023, The Ruskin Museum served legal papers on Bill Smith and Bluebird Project Ltd to ensure that the rebuilt Bluebird K7 was handed to its owners, since the Deed of giftgranted in December 2006. The case was settled prior to a hearing after Smith decided to "walk away" resulting in a Tomlin order, which confirmed that neither Bill Smith or the Bluebird Project had any further right, title or interest in the restored (but engineless) Bluebird K7 and all its parts. It also clarified an agreed proportion of the costs (£25,000) to be paid to the Ruskin museum, and ensured that K7 would be housed in the purpose-built Bluebird wing of the museum.’

Please avoid further changes.

Thank you 80.3.122.252 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus was added in 66 therefore 66-67 83.137.7.169 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae hynny'n gywir.

Orpheous yn unig yn

ystod ymgais record

cyflymder 66-67. 83.137.6.248 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here as an admin. What independent reliable sources have written about the Tomlin order? Wikipedia articles should not be using court publications as a source—see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a sourcing issue. This is not about the fact of the order's wording, it's about the use of highly pejorative wording within the article, even though it can be argued to be 'supported' by the sources either way. It's an editing (and behavioural) issue, not sourcing.

Also this should be at Talk:Bluebird K7, not here. But the (conveniently anonymous) IPs are always so keen to personalise this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://ruskinmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Tomlin-Order-2024.pdf 83.137.7.169 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hammerton Smith (September 10)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Many of the sources do not mention Smith and the ones that do are his comments or brief mentions. In addition, much of content is not about Smith and this is written in a promotional non-neutral manner.

S0091 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Hammerton Smith

If you want to move the draft WP:mainspace, choose (Article) which is the first option in the list. However I will warn you, if you do move it mainspace it will be nominated for deletion and most likely will be deleted which is why it was rejected at AfC. Once an article is deleted, it is even more difficult to get it accepted if it is ever recreated. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have condensed the information down to a bare minimum. Please note that the name of "Bill Smith" appears on several Wiki articles to which a blue link should be added. It is not unreasonable that Wiki readers should get an answer when they ask "Who is this Bill Smith". Thanks for your continuing interest in this. Nigel PG Dale 08:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nigel PG Dale,

Please be more careful when considering if a page should be moved to a different page title. Make sure you are moving it to the correct namespace and that the title is spelled correctly. Have a very good reason that an article should be moved to a different page title. And articles shouldn't be moved over and over again, depending on whether or not it is a draft article, articles shouldn't need to be moved multiple times. Also, if an article is being discussed at an AFD discussion, please do not move the article until the discussion is closed. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bill Smith (underwater surveyor)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bill Smith (underwater surveyor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bill Smith (underwater surveyor)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bill Smith (underwater surveyor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Smith (underwater search sonar expert. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bill Smith (underwater surveyor)

A tag has been placed on Bill Smith (underwater surveyor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

disruptive editing

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bluebird K7 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
We report what the sources say we don't use original research. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Bill Smith as an amateur diver is factually correct, and can be sourced going back to at least 2001 in many news reports, of which a few are linked to below.

It most certainly was/is not a one off remark used as a throwaway humorous expression as you suggest.

Your continued edit war, and promoting of Bill Smith beyond what is factual, clearly indicates you are as far removed from a neutral point of view as possible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68434707

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/divers-bluebird-appeal-1599656

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/09/heritage-groups-in-battle-to-bring-bluebird-home/148452

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/1291786.work-set-start-new-bluebird/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875041/Donald-Campbells-daughter-70-watched-fathers-iconic-record-breaker-Bluebird-restored.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4147854.stm

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/7094459.bluebird-may-race-coniston/ 2A00:23C4:B329:C901:89FF:184C:29AB:74AD (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose editing

Your single purpose micro editing on Bluebird K7 is becoming tendentious see WP:OWN. Your reversal of well sourced content to your preferred version is disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

The description of Bill Smith as an amateur diver is factually accurate, and can be sourced going back to at least 2001 in many news reports, of which a few are linked to below.

It most certainly was/is not a one off remark used as a throwaway humorous expression as Nigel suggests.

His continued edit war, and promoting of Bill Smith beyond what is factual, clearly indicates he his as far removed from a neutral point of view as possible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68434707

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/divers-bluebird-appeal-1599656

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/09/heritage-groups-in-battle-to-bring-bluebird-home/148452

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/1291786.work-set-start-new-bluebird/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875041/Donald-Campbells-daughter-70-watched-fathers-iconic-record-breaker-Bluebird-restored.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4147854.stm

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/7094459.bluebird-may-race-coniston/2A00:23C4:B329:C901:89FF:184C:29AB:74AD 2A00:23C4:B329:C901:89FF:184C:29AB:74AD (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]