User Talk: Dw31415

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Dw31415/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}

RfCStats - Bad section parsing

@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

alt=only 3 sections|thumb|screen shot of incorrect section parsing ↗
Dw31415 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

: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)

::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)

::@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)

:::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)

::::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)

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

::::::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)

:::::::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)

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

:::@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)

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC on renaming AfD''' 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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 21:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

:Note to self about timing: https://github.com/sohomdatta1/yapperbot-services/blame/main/frs/main.go#L99 Dw31415 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::WP:BADRCF ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Delay

The delay also already exists, since the bot runs once per 24 hours. {{smiley}} Polygnotus (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:Ah, interesting. I guess that means 25% of RfCs are only getting a 6 hour delay (or less). How long were you thinking for a draft phase? Dw31415 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::~2 or 3 days. Not sure if you saw the chunky chunks. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Pong. Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi. Man the Camaro RfC is a train wreck. Makes me lean back toward a “procedural close” it’s just an N of 1 tough. I was pinging you to see any thought on an RfC about RfCs Dw31415 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::See Talk:Chevrolet Camaro#c-Vanguard10-20260417024800-SURVEY - Votes with explanation ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::It is a beautiful mess, like me.
::::::Maybe this can push it in the right direction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chevrolet_Camaro#c-Polygnotus-20260417234200-Vanguard10-20260417024800 Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|any thought on an RfC about RfCs}} Quite a few, but its probably wise to take that slow. It would be nice to be able to represent both sides fairly, so a cooling off period seems like a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:@Polygnotus, FYI: User talk:Dw31415#Workshop - Quick RfC End - Procedural Close Dw31415 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC Singature

I appreciate this comment Wikipedia talk:Genocide#c-Boud-20260426083700-Boud-20260404200300 ↗ but I’m backing away from editing the question itself Dw31415 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:The actual list of arguments for and against ↗ is archived. Just to avoid any misunderstanding ({{ping|WhatamIdoing}} too), I wasn't proposing to edit that in place. I don't see any current discussion on the question. I was rather just thinking of a note for possible future discussions. Boud (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::I've replied at WT:Genocide; if we want to keep talking about it, then maybe we should move all of it to WT:RFC ↗, so it would turn up in a search of the archives later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::{{diff|Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment|1351318659|1351184688|{{done}}}} Boud (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Rumors

* With regard to upcoming films, etc. obviously if there is widespread coverage in the mainstream press, that falls under the phrase "the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion." The problem is how to distinguish what is validly newsworthy from what is simply a publicity campaign. One extreme: The New York Times is reporting it. Another extreme: the creator of a very-low-budget film or self-published book personally creates an article about the upcoming release. Somewhere in the middle: the "press coverage" is from the rumor section of a gamer's website, or the "what's new" column of an industry trade journal that customarily prints any press release they are sent, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dw31415 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Workshop - Quick RfC End - Procedural Close

Starting workshop Dw31415 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Question options (RFCEND)

A. Who may end …

Answer options (RFCEND)

A. Don’t include any
B. Only Redrose ;-)

Advertising options (RFCEND)

A. 20 random SBB’s

BEFORE links (RFCEND)

Discussion (RFCEND)

22:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Lets not start a RfC workshop now, and not about so many things at once. See here ↗. Polygnotus (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

:@Polygnotus maybe a Poll instead? Those used to be a thing Dw31415 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Most Christians

Me: Review this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#c-Mevsherd-20260408025900-Literal_vs._notional ↗

I think Mevsherd has a point that saying what “most Christians believe” is an extraordinary claim. In what sense is the source making that claim and how does it differ from a public opinion approach.

ChatGPT:

You’re putting your finger on a real distinction that often gets blurred in Wikipedia disputes: ''what kind of claim is being made when a source says “most Christians believe X”?''

Even without the exact thread text loading cleanly, the pattern you’re reacting to is very familiar on Wikipedia talk pages—and Mevsherd’s objection is basically about '''category error'''.

'''1) What kind of claim the source is making'''

When a reliable source says something like “most Christians believe…,” it is '''usually not''' making a public-opinion claim (like a poll). Instead, it’s typically doing one of these:

'''A. Doctrinal / typological generalization'''

Scholarly or theological works often summarize traditions:

“Christians believe X” = ''this is a core or widely attested doctrinal position across major denominations''

It’s based on:

* creeds (e.g., Nicene)

* official church teachings

* long-standing theological consensus

This is closer to '''classification''' than measurement.

Think of it like:

“Most physicists accept quantum mechanics”

That’s not from a survey—it’s inferred from the structure of the field.

'''B. Interpretive synthesis of sources'''

Secondary sources often synthesize multiple traditions and say “most” to signal:

cross-denominational prevalence

absence of major dissent in mainstream traditions

This is '''editorial summarization of literature''', not raw data.

'''2) How that differs from a public-opinion approach'''

A true '''public opinion claim''' would require:

surveys or polling data

defined population (“Christians in the U.S.” vs globally)

measurable percentages

Those claims look like:

“65% of American Christians believe…”

“A Pew survey found…”

That’s a completely different epistemic standard.

'''3) Why Mevsherd’s point has bite'''

Mevsherd is right in this narrow sense:

Saying “most Christians believe X” ''sounds like a quantitative empirical claim''.

But often the source is actually doing something else (doctrinal generalization). So the issue is:

'''Surface form''' → sounds empirical (“most”)

'''Actual basis''' → qualitative synthesis

That mismatch is what triggers disputes.

'''4) Why Wikipedia struggles with this'''

Wikipedia policy (especially around sourcing and neutrality) pushes toward:

verifiable claims

clear attribution

avoiding vague generalizations

So editors will challenge:

“most Christians believe X” because it’s:

hard to verify quantitatively

potentially misleading without context

This is similar to older talk-page debates where editors question phrases like “many believe…” as weasel words or unsupported generalizations.

'''5) The deeper conceptual difference'''

You can frame it cleanly like this:
{| class="wikitable"
| valign="middle" |'''Type of claim'''
| valign="middle" |'''Basis'''
| valign="middle" |'''Example'''
| valign="middle" |'''Standard of evidence'''
|-
| valign="middle" |'''Doctrinal generalization'''
| valign="middle" |Texts, traditions, theology
| valign="middle" |“Christians believe Jesus is divine”
| valign="middle" |Scholarly synthesis
|-
| valign="middle" |'''Sociological/public opinion'''
| valign="middle" |Surveys, polling
| valign="middle" |“60% of Christians believe…”
| valign="middle" |Empirical data
|}
The problem arises when '''language from one column is used to express something from the other'''.

'''6) What a cleaner formulation would look like'''

A more precise Wikipedia-style phrasing would be:

“According to [scholar/source], mainstream Christian theology holds that…”

“In most major Christian traditions…”

“Historically, the dominant view in Christianity is…”

That keeps it in the '''doctrinal/typological lane''' and avoids implying a poll.

'''Bottom line'''

Mevsherd’s instinct is sound:

“most Christians believe” ''is'' an “extraordinary claim” '''if interpreted as empirical'''.

But in many sources, it’s not meant that way—it’s shorthand for:

“This is the dominant position across major Christian traditions.”

The real issue isn’t truth vs falsehood—it’s '''ambiguity about what kind of claim is being made'''.

If you want, I can pull the exact Mevsherd comment and break down the specific sourcing they’re reacting to—that usually reveals whether the phrase is defensible or sloppy in that instance. Dw31415 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

:User talk:Dw31415#Most Christians Dw31415 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Happy Science''' 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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 17:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa''' 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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 14:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Dw31415'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Unnamed Sources}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Unnamed Sources ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

Archive today bulk edit - May attempt

Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

:Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonprofit archive

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](<nowiki>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</nowiki>)

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

<nowiki>##</nowiki> The strongest fair-use-oriented models

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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.”

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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.

---

<nowiki>##</nowiki> The riskiest activities

Based on recent cases, these are high-risk:

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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](<nowiki>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</nowiki>)

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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](<nowiki>https://legalclarity.org/hachette-v-internet-archive-the-copyright-case-explained/?utm_source=chatgpt.com</nowiki>)

---

<nowiki>##</nowiki> Architectures that could reduce legal exposure

A modern nonprofit archive could combine:

<nowiki>###</nowiki> Robots.txt and opt-out compliance

Even if imperfect philosophically, it helps show good faith.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> “Evidence mode”

Instead of rendering entire pages:

- preserve cryptographic hashes,

- timestamps,

- screenshots,

- excerpts,

- semantic diffs.

This shifts the function toward verification rather than republication.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> Time-delayed access

Example:

- public snapshot after 6–24 months,

- unless page disappears.

This reduces direct market competition.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> Public-interest prioritization

Archive aggressively:

- government,

- public health,

- scientific,

- legal,

- nonprofit,

- historical materials.

Archive commercial entertainment content more cautiously.

---

<nowiki>###</nowiki> Research APIs instead of consumer reading interfaces

A system aimed at:

- historians,

- journalists,

- researchers,

- courts,

- librarians

looks more transformative than:

- “free replacement internet.”

---

<nowiki>##</nowiki> A subtle but important distinction

There are really two separate legal questions:

<nowiki>###</nowiki> A. Is making archival copies lawful?

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

<nowiki>###</nowiki> 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](<nowiki>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</nowiki>) Dw31415 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Archive Rfc

Request for Comment: Handling existing archive.today links

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, {{tl|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)

:last RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
: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)
::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)
:::diff
{{Text diff
|* Maurer, Maurer. ''Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II ↗''. Maxwell Air Force Base ↗, Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1982.
|* Maurer, Maurer. ''Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II ↗ <nowiki></nowiki>''. Maxwell Air Force Base ↗, Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1982.
}}
Dw31415 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 18:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sample

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

Draft discussion

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<ref>Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#c-Iam-py-test-20260612142000-Dw31415-20260610112000 ↗</ref>. 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<ref>[Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Wrap standalone, blacklisted link ↗</ref>.

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)

:<ref>Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#c-Iam-py-test-20260612142000-Dw31415-20260610112000 ↗</ref> Dw31415 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft please see

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

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

Discussion at BRFA to address archive.today standalone links ↗

25px|link=|alt= ↗ You are invited to join the discussion at :Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CutlassBot ↗.  Dw31415 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:User:Dw31415/Link Removal Options Dw31415 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Feedback requested on Template:Deprecated archive ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Advice requested: clarifying implementation questions from a closed RfC

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?

WMF Guidance Request

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

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

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 12:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance § Wrap standalone, blacklisted link ↗

20px|link=|alt= ↗ 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)

Prompt

Template:LLM prompt and response ↗

{{LLM prompt and response|date=1 July 2026|LLM=Gemini|prompt=(include current copyedit text) Suggest a revision with improved grounding in how LLMs work|response=Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce external factual claims or unsourced details. Caution is required because LLMs operate on statistical probability rather than factual verification; they are prone to "hallucinating" plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated information, and they routinely alter semantic nuances. This can shift the meaning of your text so that it is no longer strictly supported by the cited sources. }} Dw31415 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Gemini Dw31415 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#c-Dw31415-20260702002900-Dw31415-20260701035800 ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiline textdiff

About what I said in {{slink|WT:NOLLM#Refining basic copy editing}} about using {{tlx|textdiff}} for multiple lines:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
{{textdiff|Line nr. 1|Line nr. 1 with some changes}}
{{textdiff|Line nr. 2 without some changes|Line nr. 2}}
</syntaxhighlight>
{{arrow}} results in:
<div style="overflow:hidden;">
{{textdiff|Line nr. 1|Line nr. 1 with some changes}}
{{textdiff|Line nr. 2 without some changes|Line nr. 2}}
</div>
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)

Draft version LLM

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. {{tq2|For this reason, '''use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited''', save for the exceptions given below. }}

{{tq2|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)

{{textdiff|1= Text generated by large language models ↗(LLMs){{efn|such as ChatGPT ↗, Gemini ↗, Grok ↗, Claude ↗, DeepSeek ↗, or Grammarly ↗}} often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies ↗. For this reason, '''the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited''',{{efn|Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/RfC ↗, March 2026}}except for basic copyedits ↗ and translation of material from other language Wikipedias ↗ as outlined below. See Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models ↗ for advice on using LLMs for purposes other than content generation.
|2=Text generated by large language models ↗(LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies ↗. For this reason, '''the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited''', except for the uses outlined below. See Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models ↗ for advice on using LLMs for purposes other than content generation. }}Dw31415 (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:Dw31415 (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:Refining basic copy editing Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::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)

Draft RfC questions

Chat GPT:

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

# '''Should the LLM guideline continue to include an exception for basic copyediting at all?'''
#* Keep the exception.
#* Remove the exception.
#* Other (explain).
# '''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.

# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''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.
# '''Should examples of acceptable and unacceptable AI-assisted copyedits be added to the guideline?'''
#* Yes.
#* No.
# '''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)

Message draft for CutlassBot complaints

Thank you for comment about this bot’s edit. Since the RfC 600,000 have been hidden by the {{t|cite web}} and {{t|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)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 17:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see trial run

{{t|subst:Please see | Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Unannounced vehicles - too restrictive?}} Dw31415 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

: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)
::Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CutlassBot#Trial complete ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::* Oatman Flat ↗
::* Urinboy Rakhmonov ↗
::* Playing Beatie Bow (film) ↗
::* Swaroop Kanchi ↗
::* Tignon ↗
::Dw31415 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Oatman Flat ↗, Urinboy Rakhmonov ↗, Playing Beatie Bow (film) ↗, Swaroop Kanchi ↗, Tignon ↗ Dw31415 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 16:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 01:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Dw31415

RfCStats - Bad section parsing

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Delay

RfC Singature

Rumors

Workshop - Quick RfC End - Procedural Close

Question options (RFCEND)

Answer options (RFCEND)

Advertising options (RFCEND)

BEFORE links (RFCEND)

Discussion (RFCEND)

Most Christians

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your thread has been archived

Archive today bulk edit - May attempt

Nonprofit archive

Archive Rfc

Request for Comment: Handling existing archive.today links

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Sample

Draft discussion

Draft please see

Discussion at BRFA to address archive.today standalone links ↗

Advice requested: clarifying implementation questions from a closed RfC

WMF Guidance Request

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance §&nbsp;Wrap standalone, blacklisted link ↗

Prompt

Multiline textdiff

Draft version LLM

Draft RfC questions

Message draft for CutlassBot complaints

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Please see trial run

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:archive.today guidance § Wrap standalone, blacklisted link ↗