User talk:Dw31415

@S Marshall, I started looking at RfCStats again. Parsing this page Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti presented a problem in that the second section as parsed by mwparserfromhell. Do you happen to see any bad markup (unclosed tags) in Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti#Extended Protected Edit Request, 2nd of Febuary, 2026 section? I looked but don't see anything wrong with the section.

(partially just letting you know I'm looking at it again, please confirm you still think it's of value).

https://github.com/earwig/mwparserfromhell/issues/311

Dw31415 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Thank you for looking at it again. I'm not seeing anything wrong with that section either?—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I just got back around to looking at this. It turns out the section had an unclosed italics tag. mwparser can be configured to ignore formatting tags. I'll try that. Dw31415 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  @S Marshall, Please take a look and spot check one of the RfC's (just a test run with 10 samples): User:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats#RFC Analysis Report Dw31415 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I'm really liking this. Being greedy, could we make the output into a sortable Wikitable?—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Sure!

  @S Marshall, Separate question: Right now it’s taking the list of open RfCs as the source which means it will drop off after the RfC is delisted. Would it be better to take from the list at Wikipedia:Closure requests? Dw31415 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Check out update with sorting and user info. Dw31415 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  The sorting is exactly what I needed! In an absolutely perfect world, I would be able to give the script a specific page revision and rfcid, and get it to generate the table for that rfcid. I don't see this script as a necessary thing to run on every RFC that happens -- only specific ones where appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Sounds good. I’ll need to set up Toolforge. I hope to do that over the next few weeks. Stay tuned. Dw31415 (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  One small step closer: https://dw-alpha-bot.toolforge.org Dw31415 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

  @S Marshall, I finally got around to figuring out toolforge. I think I have it set up to run every 5 minutes. The bot will look for a new topic and RfC link at User talk:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats . Please try it out by adding a link to an RfC in a new topic. Within 5 minutes it should look and run the analysis. Dw31415 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Just tried and edit conflicted with you. Will try again soon!—S Marshall T/C 00:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  It just ran successfully via the toolforge cron whoop. User talk:DwAlphaBot/RfcEditStats#Infobox military conflict Dw31415 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  go for it now! Dw31415 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I might have broken it!—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I’ll have to take a look later. Thanks for trying! Dw31415 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Me: Archive today was exposed as a malicious actor. I want to consider a startup nonprofit to archive the web. What kind of publishing meets fair use criteria?

ChatGPT 5.5: If you were designing a nonprofit web archive today, the safest legal path is to think less like a "shadow publisher" and more like a preservation, indexing, and research infrastructure organization.

The recent litigation involving [Internet Archive](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) shows that courts are becoming much stricter when an archive distributes full expressive works in ways that substitute for the original market. Courts rejected the argument that nonprofit status alone makes broad copying "fair use." [oai_citation:0‡American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2025-winter/second-circuit-affirms-decision-rejecting-fair-use-internet-archive-ebook/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

That said, there are still several kinds of publishing and archiving activities that are much more defensible under U.S. fair use doctrine.

## The strongest fair-use-oriented models

### 1. Search and indexing, not substitute reading

This is the model courts have historically treated most favorably.

Examples:

- storing copies to create:

- full-text search

- citation verification

- change detection

- link rot prevention

- historical comparison

- metadata extraction

- showing:

- snippets

- thumbnails

- excerpts

- diffs between versions

The legal theory is "transformative use":

the archive is not replacing the original publication experience, but enabling discovery, scholarship, or verification.

A very important distinction:

- "Here is the whole article free forever" is risky.

- "Here is evidence that the article existed, changed, or said X on date Y" is much stronger.

This is closer to how search engine caches were defended.

---

### 2. Preservation-only dark archives

A safer architecture is:

- archive broadly,

- but do not publicly distribute everything.

You preserve material for:

- historical continuity,

- legal evidence,

- journalism,

- disaster recovery,

- research access under controlled conditions.

Access can be:

- delayed,

- permission-based,

- on-site,

- scholar-only,

- or triggered only after disappearance from the live web.

Libraries and archives traditionally receive more legal sympathy when preservation is separated from mass public redistribution.

---

### 3. Public-interest evidentiary archiving

One especially defensible area is preserving:

- government publications,

- political statements,

- public corporate claims,

- scientific communications,

- deleted public records,

- journalism relevant to accountability.

The argument becomes:

- democratic transparency,

- historical record,

- anti-corruption,

- scholarly verification.

Courts and commentators often distinguish these functions from entertainment substitution.

A nonprofit explicitly focused on:

> "maintaining an immutable historical record of public communications"

would likely stand on firmer ground than:

> "free universal access to copyrighted media."

---

### 4. Limited quotation and contextual publication

Publishing:

- short excerpts,

- screenshots,

- quoted passages,

- annotations,

- commentary,

- criticism,

- timeline comparisons

is traditionally safer than hosting entire works.

Especially strong:

- criticism,

- fact-checking,

- academic commentary,

- documenting changes over time.

For example:

- "Company X removed this claim from its website"

- "This politician altered this statement"

- "This article was revised after publication"

Those are classic transformative/documentary uses.

---

## The riskiest activities

Based on recent cases, these are high-risk:

### Full-text public distribution of copyrighted works

Especially:

- books,

- music,

- newspapers,

- paywalled journalism,

- movies,

- magazines.

Even if:

- nonprofit,

- no ads,

- educational,

- one-copy-per-user.

Courts recently rejected those arguments in the ebook context. [oai_citation:1‡American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2025-winter/second-circuit-affirms-decision-rejecting-fair-use-internet-archive-ebook/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

---

### Becoming a replacement market

The biggest danger factor is usually market substitution.

If users can say:

> "Why subscribe or buy? I’ll just use the archive."

that strongly weakens fair use.

Courts repeatedly focus on:

- licensing harm,

- lost subscriptions,

- competing ebook markets,

- undermining future monetization. [oai_citation:2‡LegalClarity](https://legalclarity.org/hachette-v-internet-archive-the-copyright-case-explained/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

---

## Architectures that could reduce legal exposure

A modern nonprofit archive could combine:

### Robots.txt and opt-out compliance

Even if imperfect philosophically, it helps show good faith.

---

### "Evidence mode"

Instead of rendering entire pages:

- preserve cryptographic hashes,

- timestamps,

- screenshots,

- excerpts,

- semantic diffs.

This shifts the function toward verification rather than republication.

---

### Time-delayed access

Example:

- public snapshot after 6–24 months,

- unless page disappears.

This reduces direct market competition.

---

### Public-interest prioritization

Archive aggressively:

- government,

- public health,

- scientific,

- legal,

- nonprofit,

- historical materials.

Archive commercial entertainment content more cautiously.

---

### Research APIs instead of consumer reading interfaces

A system aimed at:

- historians,

- journalists,

- researchers,

- courts,

- librarians

looks more transformative than:

- "free replacement internet."

---

## A subtle but important distinction

There are really two separate legal questions:

### A. Is making archival copies lawful?

Courts often tolerate or implicitly allow a surprising amount of copying for indexing/search/preservation purposes.

### B. Is distributing those copies publicly lawful?

That is where recent cases became much harsher.

A nonprofit archive is likely strongest if it:

- preserves broadly,

- publishes selectively,

- transforms materially,

- minimizes market substitution,

- and frames itself as civic infrastructure rather than a free media platform.

This area remains unsettled and evolving, especially with AI training disputes now influencing how courts think about mass copying and archives. [oai_citation:3‡tomshardware.com](https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/big-tech/news-outlets-are-blocking-wayback-machine-from-archiving-their-pages-23-outlets-concerned-ai-companies-might-abuse-fair-use-and-use-it-to-train-their-models?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Dw31415 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The community has determined that archive.today and its associated domains should no longer be used as citation archives. However, a large number of existing archive.today links remain in articles. There are several possible approaches for handling these existing links, and consensus is sought on whether a bot should be authorized to perform any large-scale action. ‘’‘Question’’’ What should be done with existing archive.today links that remain in articles? ‘’‘Option A: Remove archive.today links’’’ Authorize a bot to remove all archive.today links from articles. The original URL would be retained where available, but archive.today URLs would be deleted without replacement unless separately addressed by editors. Advantages: Eliminates all references to a blacklisted service. Simple to implement and audit. Avoids continued reliance on archive.today content. Disadvantages: Removes access to archived content where no alternative archive exists. May leave some citations less verifiable than before. Could result in substantial loss of archival coverage. ‘’‘Option B: Replace archive.today links with a maintenance template’’’ Authorize a bot to wrap existing archive.today links in a maintenance template. The template would display the original URL while retaining the archive.today link for tracking and future review. Advantages: Preserves information while flagging it for cleanup. Enables systematic review of affected citations. Supports future remediation. Disadvantages: Archive.today links remain in article source. May create large maintenance categories. Does not immediately resolve the issue. Previous discussion topics: Whether archive.today and related domains should be used as citation archives. The impact of blacklisting archive.today on existing citations. Methods for preserving access to archived content while complying with policy. Potential bot-assisted approaches for managing archive.today links. Use of maintenance templates to track and review affected citations. Concerns about verifiability, archival coverage, and long-term cleanup workflows. Authorize a bot to wrap existing archive.today links in a dedicated maintenance template (for example, {{Archive.today }} or similar). The template would render the original underlying URL to readers while retaining the blacklisted archive.today link in the template’s parameters for tracking, maintenance, and possible future reversal. It would categorize pages for future review and potentially provide tracking and reporting functionality. Advantages: Preserves information while flagging it for remediation. Allows editors to prioritize and review affected citations. Creates a structured workflow for future cleanup. Disadvantages: Leaves archive.today links present in article source, even if not displayed to readers. May create large maintenance categories. Does not immediately resolve the underlying issue. ‘’‘Option C: Leave existing links unchanged’’’ Take no automated action regarding existing archive.today links. Editors may continue to replace or remove links on a case-by-case basis. Advantages: Avoids large-scale automated changes. Preserves all existing citation information. Allows editorial judgment in each case. Disadvantages: Cleanup may proceed slowly or inconsistently. Archive.today links may remain indefinitely. Makes it more difficult to assess overall progress. ‘’‘Additional comments’’’ Editors are encouraged to discuss whether a combination of these approaches would be preferable, whether any bot task should be limited to specific namespaces or citation templates, and whether additional options should be considered. Dw31415 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

last RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 Dw31415 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance?markasread=348655942&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Wrap_standalone,_blacklisted_link

Wikipedia_talk:Archive.today_guidance#Wrap_standalone,_blacklisted_link Dw31415 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Previous convo: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 77#c-Mdm.Bla-20260220032100-Using a bot to apply Template:New archival link needed to references Dw31415 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

diff

Dw31415 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Black Adam on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot ) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Link to sample Dw31415 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY&redirect=no

In February, the WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY RfC reached a consensus to "remove" all links to archive today. Since then good efforts have been made to replace the links or hide them when contained in templates. However, more than 100,000 links remain visible.

This week, Wikipedia editors documented instances in which archive.today links redirected readers to the Tehran Times rather than the expected archived content^[1] . The behavior was captured on video and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance. This new behavior reduces the utility of the remaining links and demonstrates that readers cannot reliably predict where these links will lead.

I intend this bot to implement the existing community consensus by replacing archive.today links with their original source URLs when those URLs can be identified. I do not intend the bot to evaluate the continued availability of the original source material. Rather, it will restore the target selected by the original editor while removing links to a service that the community has already determined should no longer be presented to readers.

I currently operate DwAlphaBot, but propose this task should be conducted by a new bot to improve traceability and distinguish these edits from DwAlphaBot’s other approved tasks. The code is not yet complete, and discussion is ongoing regarding implementation details, including whether any hidden metadata should be preserved^[2] .

I am seeking early review and guidance from BAG and interested editors and request approval for an initial trial of up to 20 edits involving only deterministic replacements where the original URL is reviewed by me.

Dw31415 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

^[3] Dw31415 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Talk Dw31415 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CutlassBot Dw31415 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CutlassBot. Dw31415 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:Dw31415/Link Removal Options Dw31415 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Feedback requested on Template:Deprecated archive Dw31415 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am seeking advice about process regarding the closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 (the NOMOREARCHIVETODAY RfC).

There’s pushback on most of the proposals I’ve made to implement the consensus. the practical implications of that consensus. Specifically, there appears to be disagreement over whether the consensus to "remove" archive.today links contemplated deterministic implementation based on the presence of archive.today links themselves, or whether individual editorial review of each citation was expected before any removal could occur.

I am not seeking to reopen the RfC or relitigate its outcome. Rather, I am looking for guidance on the appropriate venue and process for obtaining clarification when reasonable editors disagree about what a closed RfC authorized in practice.

Would the preferred approach be to:

• ask for advice on the original RfC talk page;
• seek input from the closer and/or participants in the original discussion;
• continue the implementation discussion in the venue where the question arose; or
• initiate a new RfC specifically addressing the implementation question?

Am I going in the right direction? Dw31415 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

new post Dw31415 (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pilaf on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot ) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cathy Caruth on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot ) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance § Wrap standalone, blacklisted link. (template pls) Dw31415 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Template:LLM prompt and response

Dw31415 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Gemini Dw31415 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#c-Dw31415-20260702002900-Dw31415-20260701035800 Dw31415 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

About what I said in WT:NOLLM §Refining basic copy editing about using {{textdiff }} for multiple lines:

{{textdiff|Line nr. 1|Line nr. 1 with some changes}}
{{textdiff|Line nr. 2 without some changes|Line nr. 2}}

→ results in:

The template itself doesn't support it, but it kind of doesn't need to because you can just use the template on separate lines for each line. ‐‐gurkubondinn 21:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Niche, sorry for the ping in this draft but my complements on your version. I may post this to the LLM discussion after some time. Any idea on the intent of editing away from your text below?

This draft version after edits from @NicheSports was much less ambiguous in my opinion.

For this reason, use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, save for the exceptions given below.

Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review, provided the LLM doesn't introduce content of its own. Caution is required, because LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it isn't supported by the sources cited.

Dw31415 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Dw31415 (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Dw31415 (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Refining basic copy editing Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models Dw31415 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

An RfC should focus on refining permissible uses in our writing, making syntax-level changes to existing articles, or emphasizing results over process. Dw31415 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Chat GPT:

Here are several RfC questions that isolate the major points of disagreement without presupposing an answer. Each could be voted on independently.

1. Should the LLM guideline continue to include an exception for basic copyediting at all?
   • Keep the exception.
   • Remove the exception.
   • Other (explain).
2. Should AI-assisted copyediting be limited to proofreading tasks (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and obvious grammar), or also permit stylistic rewording?
   • Proofreading only.
   • Permit limited stylistic rewording that does not change meaning.
   • Permit broader copyediting.
   • Other.
   • Current wording is sufficient.

1. Should AI-assisted copyediting be permitted only on text written by the editor using the AI, or also on text written by other contributors?
   • Only my own writing.
   • Any article text, provided the editor verifies the result.
   • Other.
2. Should the guideline continue to reference "Wikipedia:Basic copyediting", or should it instead enumerate the specific editing tasks that are permitted?
   • Keep the link.
   • Replace it with an explicit list of permitted tasks.
   • Both.
   • Neither.
3. Should the guideline define an acceptable level of rewording?
   • No rewording beyond proofreading.
   • Minor rewording that preserves meaning.
   • Rewording is acceptable if verified against reliable sources.
   • No additional definition is needed.
4. Should editors be expected to compare AI-generated copyedits against the original text before saving changes?
   • Yes, always.
   • Yes, for rewording but not simple proofreading.
   • No additional requirement.
5. Should examples of acceptable and unacceptable AI-assisted copyedits be added to the guideline?
   • Yes.
   • No.
6. Should the guideline distinguish between conventional grammar/spell-checking tools and generative LLMs?
   • Yes, treat them differently.
   • No, treat them the same.
   • Partially (explain)

Dw31415 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for comment about this bot’s edit. Since the RfC 600,000 have been hidden by the {{cite web }} and {{webarchive }} templates. The RfC closer commented that this Bot’s design is consistent with the consensus. I moved forward despite some opposition to help move us forward. This bot’s action of wrapping blacklisted archive in a new template allows the community to quickly and easily change the display of these links in a central location. Dw31415 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Visual Editor for new editors on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 17:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

{{subst:Please see }} Dw31415 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I invite everyone to review the trial edits and share any comments or concerns. Feedback on the bot’s behavior, any special cases, or any issues that should be addressed before a larger run would be greatly appreciated. Dw31415 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CutlassBot#Trial complete Dw31415 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Oatman Flat
• Urinboy Rakhmonov
• Playing Beatie Bow (film)
• Swaroop Kanchi
• Tignon

Dw31415 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oatman Flat, Urinboy Rakhmonov, Playing Beatie Bow (film), Swaroop Kanchi, Tignon Dw31415 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Austenasia on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tang dynasty on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 17:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 05:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Streamer University on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 02:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

While generally discouraged, editors may use LLMs to find potentially relevant sources, provided they write the article text themselves. See Wikipedia:LLMRESP#Finding sources. Dw31415 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Any idea why you chose "Cutlass" out of all usernames for your bot? Cutlass ^Ciera 02:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yikes. I was playing with names about cutting out blacklisted links. It didn’t occur to me to check to see if there was an active user named Cutlass. I’m sorry. Didn’t even occur to me. How do you feel about it? Dw31415 (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's a bit confusing. I received a talk page message from someone asking if I operated it a few days ago. No big deal, but a rename could be useful if you want. Cutlass ^Ciera 03:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Magazine (firearms) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 22:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 13:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply