Talk:Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci/Archive 1

Archive 1

What

What is the class of this article?

If your question is about the project banners, then at some level, that depends on standards set by individual projects. However, all of them have chosen "B" so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Merger

No. I have just largely rewritten the Leonardo da Vinci article and have created article this because:

• the other article is long
• previously the other article focused on his science and sex life, with NO heading pertaining to hhis painting except a list.
• Leonardo was famous primarily as a painter for 400 years before he became famous as a scientist
• there is a huge amount of recent interest/investigation into his science and inventions
• a lot of people want specific info on these areas
• a llot of people know a lot about these areas and need to bbe encouraged to write it wiithout the "mmain" becoming hugely longg
• each worthy painting has its own main page.
• I want to write in detail about a) his perspective b) light c) botany d)geology. All this stuff won't fit in the main article.
• there are lots of good pics of his a) flight machines b) hydraulics c) war machines d) recreated inventions... and nowhhere to displaty them on the "main".

If one small attributed painting can have its own page, then so can Leonardo the scientist.

I can't quite understand a merge has been suggested, when this page is less than half a day, and if annyone takes a look, they will see that there is a hidden format for the entire article just waiting to bbe enlarged. It's a waste of time in which I would rather be writing about Botany, Geology and Light.

--Amandajm 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about renaming it and cleaning out the stuff that can be found in the main article (such as biography), at least? "Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor" sounds more like a book title than an encyclopedia article. I was expecting this to be about a book or a movie or something. Not sure what better titles there could be, though. Maybe something like "Inventions and scientific discoveries of Leonardo da Vinci"...? 84.217.129.6 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello whoeveryouare!

• The following paragraph is the only part of the biography included in this article that does not pertain directly to Leonardo as a scientist:-

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519) was born the illegitimate son of Messer Piero, a notary, and Caterina, a peasant woman. His early life was spent in the region of Vinci, in the valley of the Arno River in near Florence, firstly with his mother and in later childhood in the household of his father, grandfather and uncle Francesco.

• Everything else here pertains to the topic of science and invention. The anatomy etc is dealt with here in a great deal more detail than in the main article. This article was created specifically in order to move wads of info from the main article in order to make room for a discussion of Leonardo's paintings. Previousy the main article had no discussion of the paintings whatsoever, and that, after all, is the real reason for his fame. Contrary to your suggestion, what I have done is "clean out" the main article, because that was what was necessary.
• However, since the main article is the main article, it needs to give a full picture of the man, so I believe that it is necessary to have brief descriptions of Leonardo's scientific study and inventions on that page as well. You will find, also, that although most of his major works have their own article, a number of the major works have been cited and compared in the general overview and discussion of his paintings on the main page.
• My reason for putting the name Leonardo da Vinci first in the title is in order that it will show up on search engines. I do not know whether it helps, but it makes it clear that the main subject is Leonardo da Vinci.

--Amandajm 06:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Name: Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor -> Leonardo da Vinci—scientist and inventor

Why is the article not called Leonardo da Vinci—scientist and inventor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.74.6.22 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

probably because I like spaces between things that are not hyphenated. If I was adding two dashes I'd write ...Vinci -- scientist and engineer... or Vinci-- scientist and engineer...

Comments? --Amandajm 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo as an alchemist

This info has been transferred from Leonardo da Vinci.

In the late years of his life he performed alchemy, in modern time we call it chemistry. He was trying to make a stone that would heal the sick and make any metal into gold (philosopher stone). In his studies he found out many things some modern scientist would consider mad or insane for its conflict with their ideals and beliefs. He was a devout catholic and the pope forbade the practice of alchemy, but leonardo didn't listen to him even though it was going against his religion. He loved to learn new things about how everything worked. That is why he dissected corpses to learn how the human body works.

Hi Donnie! If you read this article, you'll find that it already includes some of the things that you have said here.

--Amandajm 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

It would be helpful if someone fixed the vandalism at the end of the "Astronomy" section. Information was cut out.

Removal of info

I have just deleted the following recent addition:

Leonardo made contributions in the area of accelerated motion. He asked how far would something fall in successive intervals of time. Compare this to Galileo Galilei who asked how fast would something fall.

His theory of accelerated motion was that a body would fall greater distances in later intervals, and the distance fallen would follow the integers. For example, 1 unit of distance in the 1st time interval; 2 units of distance in the 2nd time interval; 3 units of distance in the 3rd time interval; etc. In other words, the distance fallen is proportional to time.

Galileo's theory of odd numbers was that that a body would fall greater distances in later intervals. For example, 1 unit of distance in the 1st time interval; 3 units of distance in the 2nd time interval; 5 units of distance in the 3rd time interval; etc. In other words, the distance fallen was proportional to the odd numbers.

Moreover, Galileo also asked what was the total distance traveled per time interval. This turned out, for instance, to be 1 total unit of distance in the 1st time interval; 4 total units of distance in the 2nd time interval; 9 total units of distance in the 3rd time interval; etc. In other words, the total distance fallen is proportional to the square of time.

The reason for the deletion is that the apparently well-meaning editor stuck it into the middle of a clearly labelled section on Perspective, and placed it, not at the end, but between two paragrphs discussing the linear perspective in two different paintings, thereby orphaning one paragraph (about the most important example as a matter of fact) from all the other paragrphs on the subject. Why do people do this? It isn't vandalism, but the effect on the article is a bad as if it was vandalism because it is so totally destructive of meaning.

The info is interesting but probably too detailed for this overview of many aspects of Leo's scientific study. It is as much about Galileo as Leonardo. It is also uncited.

Amandajm (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hovercraft, not helicopter

I have looked at the "helicopter" he invented and it works the same way as a hovercraft, using fan(s) to push air downwards.122.105.218.141 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any written information to support this? You could start by doing a Google search. Unfortunately, regardless of how right you may be, the rule on Wikipedia is that they don't publish people's original research, so you have to find a publication that also presents your theory. Amandajm (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I can't put that he invented the hovercraft on this page, but it's just wrong to say he invented the helicopter. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that he didn't really succeed in inventing either a helicopter or a hovercraft. What the intro to this article says is that he "conceptually" invented the helicopter- in other words, he came up with the notion that some sort of rotating blade on top of the craft would lift it into the air. He got the concept right, but he didn't have all the principles right. In fact, the body of the thing would have rotated the opposite direction.

The other question that I must ask is: are you talking about the object with the spiral bblade on top, or are you referring to the thing with a fan-like mechanism on either side? Amandajm (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Number 1, but he still didn't invent anything like a helicopter. Helicopter's create a pressure difference, and his hovercraft didn't. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That flying thingamigig

I'll just say this again, because you don't seem to have read it-

:The problem here is that he didn't really succeed in inventing either a helicopter or a hovercraft. What the intro to this article says is that he "conceptually" invented the helicopter- in other words, he came up with the notion that some sort of rotating blade on top of the craft would lift it into the air. He got the concept right, but he didn't have all the principles right. In fact, the body of the thing would have rotated the opposite direction.

Arguing that it was a hovercraft rather than a helicopter is really quite pointless. Leonardo didn't call it either of those things.

• It was an idea that a rotating blade could be made to lift a body.
• The idea behind a hovercraft is that a body can be made to float on a cushion of air pushed out beneath it.

To two ideas (concepts) are different. It appears from the drawing that what Leonardo had in mind, (his "concept"), was the idea of a helicopter, not the 'idea of a hovercraft. In other words, the placement of the rotor suggests that he was concentrating on the effect of the air "above" rather than "below" the object. But the actual technology needed a lot more work.

Remember that Leonardo's only knowledge of the aerofoil principle was from his own observation. His observations were breaking ground in scientific theory that kids today learn at school and take forgranted.

Now about "pressure difference"-

• Do the rotors in a hovercraft create lift because of pressure difference, or is it an entirely different principle at work?
• If there is a different principle at work, is "pressure difference" also part of what is happening?
• Presuming hovercraft work basically on a "diferent principle", to what extennt does it also apply to helicopters?

finally, why don't you sign up? It's much more pleasant having an interaction wiith a name than a number!

Amandajm (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thought.

• If the rotor on Leonardo's flying thingamigig was of solid material, what effect would it have? (For the purpose of this question, let us presume a super-light solid)
• If the rotor on the thing was of a highly flexible material on a light frame, like a hanglider, what effect would it have?

Would the way in which the thing functioned be the same or different in terms of science.

Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hovercrafts use fans to push air down to create an air cusion which they move upon. Leonardo's design apiers to work like this, with the big twerly thing on top working like a big fan to push air down. If I am wrong, please correct me and tell me how the machine works. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven't thought through the questions yet. They are about investigation. Not about right or wrong. Not about a choice between helicopter OR hovercraft, because it isn't really either. This is not a black and white, yes or no matter. This is about looking to see what scientific principles apply in this case. Do the principles change depending on the material used? You can definitely work that one out! Granma is not going to tell you. Amandajm (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1/2. Pressure diferences have nothing to do with hovercrafts. I have alredy explaned how they (hovercrafts) work. 3. Acording to how stuff works air cusions have nothing to do with helicopters. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some answers

• Pressure difference has nothing to do with hovercrafts? I don't think this is right. You need to think about it a bit more. The hovercraft doesn't rely on an aerofoil effect, which functions because of pressure difference. But it does rely on pressure difference.
• Air cushions have nothing to do with helicopters. That's right.
• Now think about my question as to the different effect caused by a rotor of rigid material, or flexible material over a frame.
• The fact that this thing has a rotor like a fan blade doesn't mean that Leonardo had a hovercraft idea in mind. If Leonardo's thingamigig was going to work like a hovercraft, then there is an essential idea/component that hasn't been included. What is it?

Amandajm (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be that the fan couldn't be turned fast enough? 122.105.218.141 (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are almost certainly right about that, but it's not quite that simple. In order to support an object (vehicle) by the hovercraft method, the fans have to be contained so that the strong downward current can't just escape.

The body needs to have a wide spreading layer of material that causes the air to get trapped between the layer and the ground. It's the pressure caused by the air being rapidly forced down under this layer at a faster rate than it can escape that causes the hovercraft to lift up off the ground.

• Just supposing that rotor was made of a rigid, or almost rigid substance, say molded fibreglass, or aluminum. Annd just supposing it could be turned very fast, what would happen? Firstly, depending on the direction it was turned, it would make a wind, either upwards or donwards.

The other thing that would happen depends on the scientific principal that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". In other words, the whole machine would react to the force of its rotor going round and round. It would start to wobble. Then it would start to twist in thhe opposite direction. Then it would probably fall over! Not from the wind, but from the rocking.

• Next possibility. Say that the rotor is made of flexible material, eg polyester or silk over a thin steel frame. Let's say that it is rotated the right direction to make a downward draft. As it turned, the polyester would billow upward, the way it does on a kite, or a hangglider. This would create lift. But what would happen if the machine got even a tiny bit off the ground...? The body of the mmachine would immediately start to rotate in the opposite direction! And bang goes the flying thingamigig!

Either way, there were a lot of probllems to sort out, before it could fly!

Do you know about the Autogyro? They are another interesting form of the helicopter idea. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems mis-named, somehow

I just discovered this and I can clearly see how it differs from, and complements, Leonardo da Vinci - but the name somehow strikes me as odd, as if he lives two lives and needs separate biographies for each. I'm not overly familiar with naming conventions, so perhaps someone more familiar with that could assist, but would it not be better to call this something like Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci?

All thoughts appreciated, just wanted to point this out. Radagast (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Test of Flying Machine

The article asserts that "On January 3, 1496 he unsuccessfully tested a flying machine he had constructed.", but there's no attribution. I have found this assertion in many other tertiary sources as well, so presumably there's some basis in fact--but then, I've also found sources that assert that he never constructed one, or that said construction is a "legend". Anyone know where this originated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.132.121 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to track down this piece of information. I started this article by transferring material from the general article, and then adding referenced material such as all the quotations. This date was present in the original article and I transferred it without sourcing it or questioning it.. Now I cannot find this date in any reliable sourc. I have no idea where it comes from, and some writers such as Martin Kemp question whether Leonardo really did test out the flying machine, or whether it is just a legend. So I will delete the date. Thank you for alerting me to this.Amandajm (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits changing c quotes to block quotes

(cut and paste from Gerbrant's talk page)

I just reverted your edits and I am leaving this message to explain why. In many articles quotations conatin information that is being used by the editor to enlarge upon the subject eg:

Vasari says of Leonardo "not only was he esteemed during his lifetime, but his reputation endured....."

This is a very different sort of quotation to:

Shakespeare wrote:

"To be, or not to be. That is the question.

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune......"

In the article about Leonardo's science and inventions, the quotations which have been set apart as cquotes fall into the "to be or not to be" category, not into the "Leonardo was esteemed during his lifetime" category. They are quotations from Leonardo's own journals that indicate how his mind was working. They are not part of the informative discussion of his achievements. Once you remove the cquote marks, the reader the reader then has to make sense of the several disjointed passages which don't flow immediately from the sentence above, or the sentence below.

When you make changes like this, you need to read thoroughly what the article is saying and understand why that format has been chosen. If you don't do this, then later editors tend to presume that what you have done is fine, because it complies with some reasonable standard. The effect, however, is very destructive to the article, however untintentionally so, because it makes nonsense out of clarity. Amandajm (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your reversion. I had read the article before I did my edit, and these are not pullquotes. Also, the cquote template generates TABLE tags instead of BLOCKQUOTE tags, which is semantically wrong. Shinobu (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

These quotes are indeed "pull quotes". However they are not used in the journalistic sense that generally entails pulling the most sensational few lines out of the article to excite interest. In this instance they are quotations pulled from the writer's journals. The actual statements made in the pull quotes is not very closely linked to the text, because they are sampled rather than discussed. That is why they were in cquotes. I know exactly how they were used, and the reason why they were in cquotes, because I wrote the article. I this particular instance, it is the correct use of this formatting. Amandajm (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Inappropriate Drawing?

The drawing of the woman's viscera in the "dissections" section of the article is particularly inappropriate to illustrate the acumen with which Leonardo examined the nature and functioning of the human body. Regarding the drawing in Leonardo da Vinci: The Anatomy of Man: Drawings from the Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, ed Martin Clayton and Ron Philo, an author of Guide to Human Anatomy (Saunders, 1985.), Philo writes

The final effect [of the drawing] is one of a quasi-mythical creature [....] illustrating as it does the worst of early medieval philosophy. The trained eye can see abnormal symmetry, a two-chambered heart with the vena cava opening directly into the right ventricle.. a uterus [with] round ligaments appearing as twin horns, ovaries out of proportion, and reticulated arteries to carry blood from the uterus to the breasts for lactation. Some of the few redeeming features ..are the appropriate height of the nipple and the approximately correct level for the tracheal bifurcation and umbilicus. The rest is myth.(p. 80)

I have an idea for the replacement, a drawing of the skull, which Philo calls "unparalleled for accuracy and concept." (p. 36). But of couse that screws up the use of the other skull drawing. (I think a third, the face forward one, is the most gripping, anyway.) I've placed this "unparelleled" one in the Commons (do a search on Leonardo with the date 1489). It also leads nicely to the concept of the sensus communis -- the "seat of emotions," shown by the cross hairs -- an entry for Wiki I intend to write.

Sorry, forgot to sign the above: Shlishke (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK! Can I suggest that you remove both pics from that section and just put in your skull pic. The drawings of a dissected arm are already shown above, to indicate how his writings were organised. The reason why I selected that profile skull is because it is at the same angle as the profile above it, and I thought that they looked rather good together. But the points that you are making about the anatomical drawing is valid. An article specifically on Leonardo's anatomical drawings would be a good thing, and you might be the right person to write it. Amandajm (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be excellent to make reference to the book by Fritjof Capra (2007)The Science of Leonardo ; Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance; Doubleday. This is a very thorough examination of the distinctive kind of science, ie non-reductive science, that Leonardo did and the book is highly original in this regard. It considers Leonardo the true father of modern science, so worthy at least of citing. Also, you might note that recently a UK heart surgeon (Francis Wells, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge)studied Leonardo heart valve drawings and reported that these helped him improve his surgical techniques. Reference is: BBC News, 2005\09\28 it is a terrific piece of current evidence for Leonardo's combining of artistic and scientific perspectives, as —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRC 07 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dumb tank question

How was the tank supposed to resist attack with fire? It looks like it has an open top, and with all those guns it must be loaded with powder. One Molotov cocktail and you have people burning up in a confined space. Well, maybe those weren't popular there, but any burning substance should work. Even if they hooded it with something, a person should still be able to climb up between two guns provided he puts something in the way so he doesn't get a sword to the gut on the way up past the crevice. But there must have been some plan, wasn't there? Wnt (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a dumb question.

• The model has been made of ply-wood, but I would presume that the planned vehicle would have been made of metal.
• It does have a roof on it, which would stop people lobbing a molotove cocktail into it.
• With all those guns, it would have been immensely heavy.
• It is worked by pedal power! Can you imagine how hard your legs would have to work, to get it going?
• There is a design for the pedal mechanism, but there are one-or-two little problems with the gears. If anybody actually succeeded in making it move, it would turn on the spot. It desn't seem very practical, but maybe that is what he wanted- a revolving, covered gun platform, rather than a tank.

Leonardo was a great concepts man. But many of his concepts were not practical until recent times. A pedal-powered armoured vehicle was one of the impractical ideas. Amandajm (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

About tank and the modern Leonardo's myths

I Agree. Simply, there was not power to move it. Do you know that Guido da Vigevano, well before Leonardo, have tried to imagine a tank powered .. by wind? Now i think, also because the success of 'Da Vinci Code', that Leonardo is even overvalued (and frankly speaking, in a quite amusing manner). I watched that documentary in which Leonardo's inventions were sistematically built and it was 'proof' that they works. LOL. About the tank, the British Army had built it and -miracle!- it moves.. but this is a fake. Try to move the beast in a one mile trip. In the documentary, the skeptical guy was defeated by the move trial. But everyone did not says how all that guns can functioned? They were vulnerable to vegetation, mud, they were heavy. As 'human power', just think to Hunley submergible's troubles. A crew forced hours to move that tank was exausted within minutes, not hours. If you build such machine and try it in a soft soil, it will sunk in the mud. Much better with mobile shields like those used in Russia, as example, to form a sort of 'mobile fortification' (very useful against cavalry). What disturbs me is that, watching that documentary, it is 'Proof' that Leonardo's tank could been a reality. Just like Spaceballs's admiral ship. I think there is a tendence to create myths that onestly even Leonardo wasn't able to soustain. And mass-media are fully guilth of this. Recently i even heard that the Leonardo's helicopter worked (with two counter-rotation propellers and a gasoline engine..), so there is no end to this trash. One day or another we will hear that Leonardo has intented also lasers, CDs, DVDs, computers (seriosly there are guys claiming this), Apollo rockets and so on. All this is exentend well other the realm of reality.

About this article, in the tank section, i suggest to write the tank worked, but its trial was only a few meters's trip on a paved way, at it was a prototype absolutely laking of any protection and real weapons (=xxxx lbs heavier).

OTOH, much, much better the armoured cavalry, instead, but of course Leonardo's genius was not understood by his fellows morons of the time.

About the single span bridge, maybe it will be built fullowing the Leonardo's idea, but surely NOT with the same tecnologies. And this is not a pointless particular. It would be like to build an old armour with titanium instead of steel. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Capra and Mitral Valve Surgery

I have added a brief reference to the extensive and very recent study of the Leonardo manuscripts by Fritjof Capra who makes a very important and rigorously researched contribution to our understanding of Leonardo as a scientist. There is still more material from that book that should be briefly cited here because it really extends and deepens knowledge of L. as a systematic scientist with a clear research method etc, however I will ask other editors to please check that volume and see what they wish to include. Also I have briefly extended the section on the UK surgeon whose mitral valve surgery improved operations for many patients inspired by Leonardo's anatomical drawings. Both of these points are of importance because they show the contemporary relevance of Leonardo's science; Capra argues that Leonardo was much more like current 'complexity theory' scientists than narrow predecessors and this is really interesting. PRC 07 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Applications of Leonardo's science

Leonardo's drawing inspired a British heart surgeon to pioneer a new way to repair damaged hearts in 2005.. Francis Wells, from Papworth Hospital Cambridge pioneered repair to damaged hearts from viewing Leonardo's medical drawings, made from the latter's body dissections. Mr Wells reported that he used the drawings to work out how to restore normal opening and closing function of the mitral valve, so that instead of repairing a floppy valve by narrowing its diameter, thereby restricting blood flow under exercise, he devised what he called: "..a complete rethink of the way we do the mitral valve operation". Leonardo's dissections also disproved the popular belief that the heart was not a muscle and demonstrated that it consists of four rather than two chambers. He 'drew' these findings, but he also described them and it was this combination that assisted Mr Wells. Leonardo also described how arteries develop 'furring' over time, creating blockages. Mr Wells used Leonardo's depiction of the opening phase of the mitral valve to operate without changing its diameter allowing an individual to recover more quickly from the intervention. According to the surgeon: "Leonardo had a depth of appreciation of the anatomy and physiology of the body - its structure and function - that perhaps has been overlooked by some."

This is too much detail about a modern application. Also, it muddles, sentence by sentence, info about Leonardo, and what the doctor did. It needs rewriting stating clearly and briefly what it was that Leonardo drew and described, with a much briefer statement to say that this information produced Well's revolutionary technique. If this one aspect is going to be described in a lot of detail, then it needs its own page and a largish image of the relevant drawing. Amandajm (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking to add information on dr. Wells' procedure, hoping that it can be universally known, as heart surgery in Singapore and Penang hasn't offer much for leak heart valve surgery. Will find out more on procedure currently offered here. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28054468 YogiHalim (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Compressionless engine

In the Wiki article on the history of the internal combustion engine it is said that in 1509 Leonardo invented a compressionless engine. It seems not to be referred to in this article. Any hope of some expert telling us what the "compressionless engine" was, and how it was thought it might work?Drg40 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Science and inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419091832/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/tv/doing-davinci/about/about.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/doing-davinci/about/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)