Talk:Gareth Thomas (materials scientist)

DOIs

@Gurkubondinn: You mention in the tag that there are "questionable DOIs cited". What does that mean, as all four DOIs seem to work just fine? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Only one of them worked for me, so that's weird. Archive.org seems to have the same problem as me:

• web.archive.org/web/20250417112302/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S135964540000392X
• web.archive.org/web/20180609101616/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S135964540000392X

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so they work for me after I first visisted linkinghub.elsevier.com (returned 403), tried again (ironically was asked if I was a robot), and then tried loading the DOI again. I'll remove that part from the {{AI-generated}} tag. Thanks for this! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Diff/1351499167. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Accusations of OR/SYNTH

Gurkubondinn, you are edit warring, making accusations that this page contains OR/SYNTH due to LLM use. In my checking there is none of this present. Please provide evidence and be specific rather than a making vague accusations. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• A theme of Thomas's research was the relationship between microstructure and material performance.

  This is sourced to a memorial tribute at National Academy of Engineering, which mentions engineering performance (but not "material performance"). The piece does not mention "microstructure" at all, but it does mention microscopy quite a lot and it says that he worked diligently to establish the relationship between the internal structure of materials.

This is only a symptom of the problem, namely that the article is generated by an LLM. Just removing the offending sentence won't fix the problem, because it would still be written by an LLM.

Regarding edit warring, I have only reinstated the tag once, but I count three reverts from you (so you are at the WP:3RR limit since this is not a BLP).

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not disclose a COI in Diff/1351449303? You're also not an RS on the subject just because you may have known him, and having known someone gives no weight to being able to discern weather or not a text about them was written by an LLM. Your claims of this being your "main research area" also holds no real value here, because the issue is not with material science research but with the use of AI (personally I happen to have a degree in Computer Science, which would be slightly more relevant when it comes to understanding statistical text generation systems, but I am not invoking credentials to support the tag).

You have been pointed to WP:AISIGNS previously, and I would suggest giving it a read. It's pretty long and dense at this point, but recognizing this stuff is a matter of practice. I've looked at way more LLM-generated text on Wikipedia than I ever cared for, but I've gained quite a bit of practice in spotting it by now. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have zero COI. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Then why did you claim to have known Gareth Thomas? Or did you mean something else (or did I misunderstand?), like you knew of him or something? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Gareth was a major figure in electron microscopy, which is my main research area. Hence I knew him, not as a COI but as a colleague. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Colleague in the sense that he worked in the same general area, or colleague in the sense that you worked together? The word wikt:colleague can be used to mean anything between "another member of the same profession" and "workmate" (some Wikipedians will refer to other editors as "colleague", from what I gather Russian editors are more likely to use that nomenclature) which is why I'm asking. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

If you went and looked at my page you would know the answer. I have no publications with him, never collaborated etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have worked in academia, and it is perfectly possible to work with someone without having any publications with them. I looked at your user page, and at the Wikipedia article that it links to, and you both seem to have at some point worked at University of Cambridge, so it's not outside of realm of possibility that you knew each other personally. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Beyond that, you can't ask me to do any sort of research into you or if you could have possibly known this person or not, because that is tantamount to ask me to try WP:OUTING you. Which I'm not going to do (for obvious reasons), I would much rather just ask you an AGF question to clarify what you meant when you said that you "knew him". --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Cone on now! Look at dates and ages! Ldm1954 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, I would much prefer an AGF answer from you than me having to "research" you. I deliberately have not checked these things, because we are not supposed to be doing these things, and it feels very iffy to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO, you were given a AGF answer I knew him, not as a COI but as a colleague, but decided to question whether Ldm1954 understands what WP:COI means. Hence you have also failed AGF by not accepting that answer as sufficient. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually Jähmefyysikko, that's more about me not understanding. I don't know what "knowing someone as COI" is, and "colleague" can mean many different things. But I'll take your point, if you say that it's a AGF answer that they didn't know each other, than I'll accept it as such. My apologies to Ldm1954 and everyone involved in that case, evidently this was a clearer answer than I realised. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Your claim about OR related to "engineering performance" versus "material performance", and "internal structure" versus "microstructure" is very wrong. They are synonyms in materials science. As I have stated multiple times there is zero evidence.

I have no idea what AGF questions you think I have not answered. As already stated, I have zero COI, no collaboration with him, no papers, zilch. He once was on a review panel of a proposal I was on, I did review some NCEM proposals he was involved in, and probably papers he was on. He might have reviewed some of my proposals/papers. None of this is COI.

Also WP:OUTING is irrelevant as I am "out", and have been for years. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

They are synonyms in materials science.

Then such MOS:JARGON should be clarified for the WP:AUDIENCE. Otherwise it's too WP:TECHNICAL (that's a good essay, but it's less relevant since the subject of the article is Gareth Thomas as a person, the article isn't about his field).

I have no idea what AGF questions you think I have not answered.
— User:Ldm1954

Weather or not you had a personal relationship with Gareth Thomas or not, since you felt that asserting that you "knew him" gave weight to your ability to discern if text about him was AI-generated.

You haven't been very clear on this, you have only said that you knew him as a colleague, have no publications with him, never collaborated etc, no papers and etc. None of that answers weather you knew him as a person or not. It is possible that having reviewed proposals or papers (or yours having been reviewed by him) would be a COI, but I would say that is unlikely given that he has passed away and thus anything you would or wouldn't do on Wikipedia cannot in any way influence those outcomes, or be used to influence outcomes for you). I've just asked you if you knew him personally or not. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As shown to me by Jähmefyysikko, I'm wrong here and have misunderstood your earlier answer. Apologies for being overly thick about it! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Asked and answered multiple times. I had no personal relationship with him. I knew him by name, as I do many hundreds of svientists. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that now. This was my misunderstanding, and I'll take it to heart that you didn't personally know him or have a personal relationship with him (see -- I also miss things). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sourced to the same memorial tribute, and also to the NAS directory entry on him:

Thomas was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1982 and the National Academy of Sciences in 1983.

The memorial tribute supports the 1982 and 1983 years, but it does not support him being "elected" to these positions characterises the as positions as memberships. The NAS directory entry does support 1983 as the election year for the NAS position, but it obviously doesn't mention the NAE position.

He very well may have been elected to these positions, I'm not disputing what the WP:TRUTH is, I'm only saying that it isn't supported by the sources used. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

More general, and very indicative of LLM-generated text, are for example these sentences:

• This was part of his broader work on metals, alloys, and ceramics, which contributed to understanding defects, phase transformations, and microstructural evolution in determining material performance.[emphasis added]

  This is the usual undue WP:AILEGACY emphasis. It doesn't clarify what this "broader work" is, or give any reasons for why this should be vaguely alluded to. Even though the source does say something similar, we are still supposed to write in wikivoice here on Wikipedia.

• He also received major awards from professional societies in materials science and metallurgy, including recognition from ASM International.

  This is more of the same, and the source does say something similar ("earned him a multitude of awards"), but this is sort of thing is to be expected from a memorial tribute (it's going to be slightly puffy by nature, but that's also why WP:PRIMARY sources are usually not good WP:RS). We are writing an encyclopaedic article here and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so we shouldn't allude to some of unspecific awards without naming or sourcing them.
  This statement is also sourced to an article in "Science beat" by Berkley Labs, but that one doesn't mention "ASM International" or "awards" at all (note that I haven't read this one very carefully yet, so I may have missed something here -- in which case, please correct me). It's also cited to a journal article about him, but I haven't checked if I can access it through WP:LIBRARY yet, so I haven't read or checked it.
  As a smaller point, this seems to be incorrectly linked to ASM International, when it should have been linked to ASM International (society) instead.

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about everything except the link (which I just corrected)

1. The statement about broader work is legit. He was a metallurgist/material scientist using EM, this is what we do.
2. His awards are vast. I did check this and it is a case where I decided that this was fine, and 20+ honorary degrees, fellowships, international awards would be excessive.

If this was a page on an associate professor then I would (routinely do) remove puff. However, this is not. You can do a search on "Gareth Thomas Berkeley" and see that much more could be added. To me less us more.

You are really stretching to find fault. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. The point isn't about Gareth Thomas as a person, his achievements or his awards (I have no opinions on the man himself). The point is to show you the extensive WP:AISIGNS that are all over this article. Yes, this might look like stretching to an untrained eye, but this is actually painstakingly and patiently breaking down small details to show you the faults and perils of AI-generated text.

This is not a scientific journal, news paper, or book publisher. This is an encyclopaedia, and we value accuracy here. And more than anything, we value WP:VERIFIABILITY. And as such, these are the details that matter here. I'm not doing anything that you aren't capable of doing or identifying yourself, it's all laid out in AISIGNS. It just takes practice, time and reading a godawful amount of dreadfully bad AI-generated text to get good at. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a thick skin, to do WP:NPP one has to have; to date I have been threatened with lawsuits twice, and had my page vandalised once. I added the "Science Beat" article as it contained other useful information, for instance about the earthquake issues. I also added the paper by Robert Sinclair as I trust him. If you are accusing me of using LLM then this is going straight to ANI.

In addition, as I have already stated I have verified everything here. Please read up what WP:NPP is if you do not already know, this is what we do. You can look at my curation log over the last two years, or ones from others at NPP. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, then you've presumably read the Science Beat article. Could you point out to me where it supports the claims of received major awards from professional societies and the ASM International award? Because I evidently missed it?

In addition, as I have already stated I have verified everything here.

Yet I am pointing out to you things that you missed. Which is okay, it's not reasonable to expect someone to always catch everything (and I certainly miss things myself). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't say that, because that's not sourced to the Science beat article. It is sourced to an obituary (and the other two sources). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And the obituary says His work has been recognized with numerous national and international awards but does not mention ASM International. Which is fine because that's cited to a different source (albeit the memorial tribute, a primary source), but I would have placed the ref tag for the obituary at the previous comma. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm breaking down some of the AISIGNS to show you why I believe that this article was generated by an LLM. It's not article that you wrote, and I have not even mentioned the editor that originally wrote it. None of this is meant to accuse anyone, I have been laying out my reasons for why I believe that the {{AI-generated}} tag is correctly applied to the article, as it is currently written. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I make no statements about the original article, and in fact I added a sterner warning and {{welcomelaws}} to the user page; warnings are standard for new page reviewing IMHO. However, I dispute your claim that the article has LLM hallucinations, and you have failed to provide convincing evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And I have made no claims of outright full hallucinations (nor have I tagged it for G15). All of the sources exist, what the article says appears to be mostly true, etc. I am saying that I believe that it was written by an LLM and thus fails WP:NOLLM. It contains AISIGNS, especially AILEGACY and SYNTH. The problem is that it is written by an LLM, not what it says (you could say that the problem is how it says it, but that would still miss the point).

It would also have been appropriate to add {{welcome-llm}} to the user page imo. The user has been warned and asked about their LLM use multiple times in the past, including by you, but have elected to ignore all of it. The fault or problem here definitely isn't with you, but the tag should remain on the page for all of the reasons that I have extensively explained to you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As I explained, I dispute your rationale. Let's wait for WP:3O of experts who know the context. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but you haven't asked for it on WP:AINB yet. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

And I will not. While they might know about LLM, they are not the subject experts. You are continuing to question technical points about the article and claims of OR/SYNTH which are inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

They are the subject "experts". This has nothing to do with material science, this is about LLMs. The "experts" for this are on AINB. Asking elsewhere is not as useful. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done: WP:AINB § Gareth Thomas (materials scientist)

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about everything except the link (which I just corrected)

The point about the link is that it is yet another sign that this wasn't written by a person, because a person would (or at least, should) check the links that they add. Mistakes happen, sure, but I am not claiming that one wrong link on it's own is proof of anything. Consider that you weren't aware of this wrong link until it was pointed out to you, but it was one of the first things that I noticed, maybe I read the text more carefully than you did? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

A better log Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what this log has to do with it? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, got it. It's an addition to "look at my curation log" above. Nevermind, I thought it was supposed to relate to the wikilink somehow. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Your claims of this being your "main research area" also holds no real value here
— User:Gurkubondinn

Found the shortcut I was trying to remember earlier; WP:EXPERTISE. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It's an essay about the arguments to avoid; but expertise is also very useful in writing about/editing any technical topic. And the content of most scientists' bios is science, not their personal lives, which may not have much encyclopedic value. Hence these bios require some expertise and understanding of the technical language from the reader/editor. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It was used an argument for removing the {{AI-generated}} tag from the article, not about the substance or contents of the biography. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did not see the context from the indentations. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn: Assuming this tag isn't a precursor to a G15 deletion, then the issues are supposed to be fixable. Once resolved, the tag can be removed. In your view, what specific measures are required to remove the tag? I find this comment too vague to be actionable. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

An {{AI-generated}} tag is not a precursor to G15 deletion. The criteria for those are very narrow, and then you just tag it for G15 already. There are some corner cases where it might make sense to do both, but then you'd do both at the same time (or right after each other).

That comment wasn't meant as an explanation for what improvements the article needs for the tag to be removed. I was correcting Ldm's assertion that I had claimed there were outright hallucinations in the article (because I have not said that and they were misrepresenting what I've said). The "fix" is the same as with every other LLM-article, to remove the LLM-generated text. The tag exists to indicate to the reader "beware, here be LLM-generated text", and until that is gone (or been rewritten by an actual person), the tags remain. There are countless examples (and lists of articles by editors that have been caught using LLMs) on AINB that you can look through if you want. In this case, at a minimum, the SYNTH needs to be removed. Someone needs to read all of the sources used, very thoroughly, and verify every single claim sourced to them (this is stuff that the creating editor should do when creating an article, but when someone has let an LLM do that for them then we cannot assume that it has been done in the first place). At AfD, a WP:TNT is often argued as the solution, simply delete the article and if the person/subject is notable, someone else can start over and write a new article. Weather that's the correct way here, I cannot say. I've spent far too much and energy time trying to convince concerned editors that this is LLM-produced in the first place, thinking about actionable solutions also takes time and energy. My first intuition is that this article probably doesn't need a TNT though, but it does need some substantial work before it is ready for article space. The article also uses mostly primary sources, so collecting RS secondary sources might quite simply naturally yield a rewrite anyway. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Three points:

1. Please read what WP:NPP is, experienced editors who check articles in detail. It is clear that you do not believe that I checked the article. I am not saying that the article is perfect, for instance it neglects his books and the controversy about his publication on spinodal decomposition as two examples, I can think of others. However, it passes review.
2. Your comments about RS and secondary sources is quite wrong. There is a reason why WP:NPROF is seperate from WP:GNG.
3. The page would be Speedy Keep at AfD, deletion is not cleanup

Ldm1954 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the {{AI generated}} tag.

• Remove I verified the sources. This article is fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Remove I verified the information some time ago.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Source for more specifics about Thomas' work

This article probably has technical details about the work Thomas did and an assessment of its impact:

• Gronsky, R. (2003). CHARACTERIZATION: THE KEY TO MATERIALS. In Nano and Microstructural Design of Advanced Materials (pp. 3-10). Elsevier Science Ltd.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the source. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/B978-008044373-7/50029-2; sadly no access via WP:LIBRARY. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Partially available at https://archive.org/details/nanomicrostructu0000unse/page/3/mode/1up?q=characterization. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Revised version

I removed a sentence and a couple of phrases that were close to the sources versions and rewrote a bit.

• The sentence "This won favor with the Department of Energy, becoming a line item in the congressional budget of 1980." was added in this edit and no other content was included.
• The phrase "honorary doctorates from Lehigh University and from the University of Mining and Metallurgy (Krakow), election to the grade of Fellow in the American Society for Metals (ASM), the Royal Microscopical Society (UK) and The Metallurgical Society (TMS), honorary memberships in the Japan Institute of Metals, the Korean Institute of Metals and the Indian Institute of Metals and Materials" was added in this edit and the other content added there was insignificant.
• The sentence "In the 1970s, Thomas and colleagues including Robert Glaeser and John M. Cowley proposed the creation of a national facility for advanced electron microscopy." is structurally similar to In 1976 Gareth and two colleagues, Robert Glaeser (Berkeley) and John Cowley (Arizona State University), proposed the creation of a National Center for Electron Microscopy to be housed on a new site at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. from https://www.nae.edu/190676/GARETH-THOMAS-19322014-. It was added in this edit which had other material but not a bunch of copyvio. I don't "proposed the creation" is very serious copyvio, but I removed it anyway.

Please see Talk:Gareth_Thomas_(materials_scientist)/Temp

@Jumpytoo Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

will check in a few days, I will also need to check the offline sources Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Mea Culpa copyvio

Jumpytoo, my apologies; when correcting a rather vague reference to assorted prizes I did copy some text without change. I was distracted, not a good excuse. If you revert to the version of 12:02, April 28, 2026 this will cure the major mistake. I will go over it tomorrow and make sure that there is nothing else that is too close to any of the sources. Courtesy ping of @Johnjbarton Ldm1954 (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

N.B., it looks like @Johnjbarton had corrected my mistake; I just got back from a concert so did not read what he had done. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have checked what John wrote, adding a bit more with independent dources, 100% not-copyvio material. I do not think there are any remaining issues. Some phrases might get flagged, but statements of facts such as positions/contributions will always look similar. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton @Ldm1954@Jumpytoo; I see the rewrite, the next step since it's at copyright problems is for someone uninvolved with the article to check over the rewrite to verify it is free of copyright violations (including close paraphrasing) and determine how best to move it into place. I'll try to get to it soon but I'm dealing with some bad brain fog right now that makes this kind of careful review hard for me. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Why dont you post at WT:Physics asking for a check? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As lovely as the physics wikiproject is, this article and rewrite needs a review from someone that is experienced at checking for copyright violations and handling moving rewrites around. With these kinds of biographies, I'll need to do a source-by-source check without using the copyvio detector, and that's not something that the folks over there would be equipped to handle unless they already do copyright cleanup. The copyright clerks and interested administrators like myself do regularly do this. I said I'll get to it soon, so within the next 72 hours. Or one of the wonderful clerks will check it out. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For all those interested, one of the copyright clerks has cleared the rewrite and I have moved the article over (and undeleted+revision deleted the old one). There's a few missing revisions and it's just reverting/restoring text so I feel safe in keeping those deleted for the sake of not having overlapping or parallel history. Thank you for the patience! Sennecaster (Chat) 18:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hm so the only problem with that approach is that it makes it a bit more tedious to determine how much of the article is now AI-generated (the initial author has disclosed that it was AI-generated), but its manageable. Thanks to the copyright clerks though, appreciated! --Gurkubondinn 19:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You can do a diff, there is relatively little of the original article left. Note that the OP stated that he used LLM to polish the text, but checked all the sources. I can confirm that the sources were OK, and are now OK (excluding minor possible typos). Ldm1954 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The clerk that checked indicated that the article had enough overlap that attribution had to be preserved, so I did a history merge instead of the typical delete + move the temporary page without a redirect. The two revisions that I removed were the two self-reverts (two most recent edits) done before the rewrite was discovered, and would have resulted in parallel histories where the rewrite and the old version of the article would be tangled together with poor to zero indication of which version it was intended to be. There shouldn't be any copyright issues remaining, and that would also indicate that a verification check has been done. So ultimately, I think a lot of the outstanding major issues are cleaned up entirely. Hopefully my explanation now that I actually have a moment makes sense about why I history merged the way I did. ^-^ Sennecaster (Chat) 03:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did anything incorrectly or that I was complaining. It was just meant as a note to say thank you to the copyright clerks, and to briefly mention that there's other (non-copyright) stuff to check as well. I know that CCI also have to do with similar scepticism and criticisms as AIC. --Gurkubondinn 09:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You're all good, I didn't read it that way at all. I know that history merge and picking apart page histories is a tricky matter and I didn't quite explain myself properly like I wanted to at first, is all. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 05:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)