Talk:TWiki

message: (Self-confessed noob here - don't bite me please) 
Article reads like an advertisement. 7/8ths of the references are from twiki.org/twiki.net. Many edits done by User:PeterThoeny|Peter Thoeny who is not neutral, being the creator of the software.
I therefore evoked NPOV. I suppose I will follow up with a request for deletion? Help.Disclaimer: I am not affiliated whatsoever with Twiki or competing software. i'm trying my own hand out at wikipedia after installing my own and falling in love with it.
--dbastien (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Dougbast (who registered today on Wikipedia) raised the NPOV, I would need to know some specific details why NPOV was raised. I am editing the article more frequently than others, which is the case for many other open source projects listed on Wikipedia as well. I did my best to write the article in a NPOV; if there are any parts that are questionable I (or anobody else) can fix that. Please be specific. I am going to remove the NPOV note in a few days if I do not see specific feedback. -- Peter Thoeny - 00:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I just did a fact check: In the last 12 month there have been 10 edits by PeterThoeny and 42 edits by other other people. -- PeterThoeny (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A data point on the references to twiki.org/twiki.net claim: 1. Most references are pointing to technical details for readers who want to learn more. 2. For comparison, the reference list of the MediaWiki article has 14 entries, 11 of which are pointing to mediawiki.org or wikipedia.org. Personally I find this OK. Same standard for all wiki engines? -- Peter Thoeny - 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the article 

message: Refactoring done without deletion: I merging the "Projects based on TWiki" and "Projects inspired by TWiki" sections into "Related software projects" section. I moved the JosWiki info from the top to the "Related software projects" section. TWiki was a continuation of JosWiki, not a typical fork. TWiki developers sent patches to JosWiki developers and vice versa until the JOS project was abandoned (and with it, JosWiki). If anyone finds this refactoring work objectionable, please discuss here instead of reverting the change. -- PeterThoeny - 05:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have repeatedly removed important information regarding the FOSWiki fork from this page, and attempted to move any mention of the fork to the appendices - can you please explain why? Most of this information was cited, and related to a major issue in TWiki's history that has a huge impact on its current viability. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The Foswiki mention is present in the appropriate section and there to stay, so that dispute is pretty much over with. Steven Walling 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged "Projects based on TWiki" and "Projects inspired by TWiki" into "Related software projects" section 

message: This reads like a marketing page. Where is the information that twiki.net is trying to supress? This article is not really giving a good picture of the overall situation.
--82.95.71.210 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing 

message: I note that it is extremely perilous to NPOV for criticisms of the project to be edited
by a person with a personal fiscal stake in the profit of a private enterprise.
PeterThoeny continues to edit this article under guise of statements like "refactoring
without deletion" in which the origin of the project "a fork of Joswiki" becomes 
"a continuation of Joswiki" (thus implying the start of TWiki was all perfume and
roses, while the beginning of Foswiki, after Peter's lockout of the people who had
built the project, was an ugly fork.    Note that the Foswiki developers have
sent patches to TWiki, such as for the recent cross-site scripting vulnerability.  These
patches were briefly credited on twiki.org and then references to the Foswiki programmers
were removed.  While hiding under the "refactoring" blanket, PeterThoeny has essentially 
applied public relations balm with every edit and, understanding that he cannot remove
critical material, has sought to soften it and move it deep into the appendices. 
67.242.45.72 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of this talk page is also worth a read - most of it relates to this same topic, despite the different headings used. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continual removal of negative information by [[User:PeterThoeny|PeterThoeny]] 

message: I believe that the events subsequent to the project's change in governance—the departure of key contributors to create a fork—are a significant development and challenge in the history of the TWiki project and so merit a very brief mention the lead paragraph. Any comments? Isaac Lin (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the change in governance is an important turning point that deserves mention in the lead, and the current version does include it by saying "In October 2008, the company TWiki.net, created by Thoeny, assumed full control over the TWiki project." What's not worth mentioning in the lead (it's in the forks section) is Foswiki. Per the article's AFD it's clear that Foswiki isn't notable. What is notable is the change for TWiki, and that's what is mentioned and sourced. None of the news references are about Foswiki, they're about TWiki's governance. Steven Walling 04:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The change in governance is not particularly notable in itself, except for the fact that it caused a change in the development community. I believe that the challenge TWiki has had to face, which is described in the cited article, is a notable event in the history of the TWiki project. Note that whether or not Foswiki has independent notability is an aside; even without this, Foswiki can be notable within the context of TWiki's history. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I propose modifying the last sentence in the lead to mention the events of a fork and change in developer community, as this is what makes the change in governance notable in the life of the project. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per our style guidelines the lead section is for summarizing the contents of the rest of article, and should speak in generalities, not explain detail not present in the rest of the article. I think if you want to expand the forks section to explain more of why Foswiki came about, go ahead. But I think mentioning specific forks is a lean to recent events rather than a strong overview of the entire subject. In other words, it's undue weight. Steven Walling 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not propose mentioning specific forks in the lead, but just that the change in governance led key contributors to create a fork, in order to show the notable consequences of the direction taken by the project. Otherwise, the final sentence seems disconnected, as it does not explain how one company assuming full control of the project is notable. The article already mentions the fork resulting from the organizational change, and so the lead would indeed have information contained in the rest of the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me then. Steven Walling 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of useful media sources for this issue are listed at the bottom of this page. 121.73.73.40 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not in consensus with your proposal and active efforts to sanitize this
page.  It presumes erroneously that the brand and the content/work are inseparable.
Most of the time there is a clear unity and legal (or at least moral) equivalence between the 
work and the brand.  When a corporation locks people out of hardware it has held in trust
and seizes a domain name for its own unilateral use, it forfeits the right to the sort of
deference that your proposed lead section would entail.  Those responsible for the bulk of
the current state of this codebase (I reiterate, the *bulk* of the development) were divorced
from credit and their consultancy pages deleted.  This is documented by reliable sources.
The current state of the TWiki *code* (as opposed to brand) is hybrid, with both branches
newsworthy, and notable by virtue of their wide deployment.  That Foswiki itself has 
few reliable sources documenting its notability as a brand (few, certainly not none) does
not remove its notability as a codebase attached to the developers that made it and continue
to develop it, though I am prepared to admit a minority dissidency but accept a consensus
(in the interests of Wikipedia amity) for larger coverage to make coverage of Foswiki
as a separate brand moot.  But to ignore the current reliable-source documentation of 
the hostile lockout of the developers of this codebase and the appropriation of their 
work to a corporate brand is highly NPOV, and both sides of the code development split
should be mentioned in the lead.  Thus my reversion of your revert, with apologies.
67.242.45.72 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what most of that rant is about, but suffice it to say that Wikipedia isn't here to discern the truth of anything. It's here to report as a third party on what reliable, secondary sources have verified as facts. Foswiki's article was deleted as non-notable for lack of source material, and this article is about TWiki, not the place to continue any debate Foswiki's contributors might be having with TWiki.net. Please take your grievances elsewhere, because Wikipedia is not the place to air them. The lead section of an article is for a summary of the rest of the article's content, not the place to introduce new, unreferenced material that promotes a fork. Steven Walling 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pivotal events following change in project governance 

message: Please don't remove the NPOV flags (I noticed this was removed by Steven Walling with no discussion) - as evidenced by this talk page, there's clearly an ongoing dispute. NPOV flags are supposed to remain until this has been resolved. 60.234.45.173 (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless your IP address has changed, I can assume that you're not one of the anonymous users who've been participating in the discussion thus far. NPOV tags exist to denote an article that is currently under discussion, not to be a tool for pushing opinions on to an article. If you'd like to stick around and participate, you're more than welcome. But adding a tag and then doing nothing except talking about others shouldn't remove it is not okay. Steven Walling 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not part of the discussion, but with all due respect removing an NPOV tag without reaching a resolution isn't OK - whether or not I take part is irrelevant. I put the flag back earlier today because you seem to have removed it without any discussion actually taking place - the flag was on the page for less than a day, despite there being a pretty obvious dispute going on in the talk page. As the flag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" - that seems pretty clear to me. 60.234.45.173 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, tags shouldn't be removed if there's an ongoing dispute...but there was no ongoing debate about NPOV so far as you're concerned. There was a consensus among a couple editors and one IP spamming for Foswiki, and you weren't a part of any discussion. If there was no ongoing discussion, then there was no reason for the banner. Steven Walling 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Could someone pls indicate what precisely the NPOV issue is, maybe we can change the respective statements and bring the article in a better state. NPOV status should trigger improvements, not debates. --Edoe (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm considering TWiki and a few other candidates for an upcoming project.  I just came here to read the article, and followed the NPOV tag to this discussion.  From my non-editor's point of view it just wasted my time.  In my opinion there is no ongoing dispute given that no specific POV issues have been identified.  Perhaps Wikipedia has some sort of disclosure or conflict of interest policy that would be relevant here, but NPOV is a non sequitur at this point. 76.247.43.67 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the NPOV flags now, since the dispute above is clearly not continuing. If there's no debate currently, then the banner is inappropriate. Steven Walling 20:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV flags 

message: People against a separate page/article on Foswiki, please have a look at the facts from the statistics by Ohloh:
Over the past twelve months, 29 developers contributed new code to Foswiki.
This is one of the largest open-source teams in the world, and is in the top 2% of all project teams on Ohloh.
For this measurement, Ohloh considered only recent changes to the code. Over the entire history of the project, 49 developers have contributed.
:This is not a forum for discussing whether Foswiki should have an article. Steven Walling 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps instead of wikilawyering you could then suggest such a forum?  You have kept a very close eye on this article over the last two years and your friendship with Peter Thoeny, I would maintain, has created the possibility of the appearance of impropriety (note, not impropriety itself -- merely the possibility of its *appearance*).  With the gentlest possible suggestion, perhaps a little more distance would be more appropriate, or instead of using rhetorical devices to create inertia, then assisting?67.242.45.72 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Foswiki -- Very large, active development team" 

message: I was looking for the FosWiki article to learn more about it, but was redirected to TWiki.  I wasn't able to find the FosWiki section; was there one?  FosWiki is one of the few free and open source enterprise wikis, so I'm quite surprised that there isn't a separate FosWiki article, especially after reading why in early talk page entries.  Normally, my experiences when looking up things in Wikipedia are wonderful, but this time it was so disappointing that I wrote about it in the talk page, which I almost never do.  12.163.172.130 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Whatever the past history, FosWiki is now an established platform separate from TWiki. See, e.g.,  and . I am not sure there ever was a real consensus to keep it off Wikipedia as separate article. Regardless,  consensus can change. Someone who is knowledgeable should change the re-direct into a separate article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are incorrect.  If you think there's enough for a separate article, you might want to try deletion review first.  That's the least-dramatic way to see about recreating the article.  Editing Foswiki from a redirect to an article again without that will just cause a lovely amount of wiki-drama.  Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  O.k., I'll bite, how does one "try deletion review"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it possible to access the original Foswiki article?  The WP:Articles for deletion/Foswiki didn't seem to have any convincing reasons for deletion.  Also, the comment "I have closed this early due to the new accounts that were showing up." by User:Deskana seems to suggest that the Article did not receive the normal discussion period related to its proposed deletion.  Actually, it is quite clear that this deletion action was rushed through.  Perhaps the individual that proposed deletion feared that continued discussion would have resulted in sound arguments for keeping the article that complied with Wikipedia policies. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.172.130 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Administrator Deskana refused to let me take a look at the seleted page, see User_talk:Deskana#Foswiki. At the same time I failed to find enough evidence that foswiki has gained sufficient attention in sources other than blogs. I guess, you have to wait until at least rel. 2.0  for it to become prominent enough for wikipedia. :-) Lorem Ip (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does FosWiki redirect to TWiki? 

message: Peter Thoeny redirects to this article.  Please see the instruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F . Lorem Ip (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article only says that it will "often be appropriate". I do not believe it is appropriate in this case to set Thoeny's name in boldface when the topic of the article is an open source project that has a broader scope than him. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He is founder and defacto owner of twiki today. His name redirects here. How can it be inappropriate? The breadth of scope is irrelevant. Boldface is not used to signify importance: it is purely "eyeball search" convenience trick for redirects. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject TWiki is not just about Thoeny; it is about the entire software product and community. As an analogy, if there were an architect whose only notability was designing a particular famous bridge, the architect may not warrant a separate article and so the architect's name could redirect to the article on the bridge. It would seem inapt, though, to place the architect's name in bold on the article, as the bridge is not just the product of the architect. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you didn't read the guideline. The guideline is not about notability; it is about th ease of search of a particular item when redirected. In our case, a reader clicks the name link and pops at the article about bridge. The firt thought is "WTF??? Did I click a correct link??" Unless the reader immediately sees the name in question. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: P.S. I don't understand why to see the name of the architect of a famous bridge is "inapt". Lorem Ip (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline gives an example where the redirecting term is not set in boldface; it is not a simple cut-and-dried rule to follow. The initial sentences are supposed to make it clear why the redirection happened; I fear you may not have noticed that the guideline does not say that the redirecting term must be set in boldface. Wikipedia's guideline on the first sentence remains applicable. By putting a mention of a subject in boldface when it has a broader scope than the article's topic, the subject is being diminished, and this makes a value judgment on the subject. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is diminished.  Project's founder is as notable as the project itself (and founder may be not notable more the project, so there is no separate article about founder). I fail to see that project's founder name impairs value judgement. I fail to see how "Format of the first sentence" relates to the issue. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall that everyone visiting the article directly will also see the boldface, and will bear in mind the guideline for Wikipedia's guideline on the first sentence. The article's subject is what is set in bold, and so unless there is a very clear equivalence between each of the bold terms, it will be misleading to readers. "Foswiki" redirects to this article, but it would be misleading to set "Foswiki" in bold, as it is not equivalent to the article's subject. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh> I suspect you have a grudge against this Thoeny guy (I guess not without reason), and I don't want to waste my time on the issue. My only final argument that I have seen artcles about books with author redirected/boldfaced without a separate article. This is quite close to the situation at hand.  But you may have it in your way, since nobody joins the chat to break the tie. I guess it isn't worth a dime.  Lorem Ip (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all — the two subjects just aren't synonyms for each other. The subject of Thoeny isn't solely limited to the TWiki project, and vice versa. The reason why the guideline on article redirection suggests considering using boldface is because redirection is commonly used for synonyms of the target article's title. In this case, though, the two are distinct. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldface for Thoeny 

message: I recently made my first ever edits to this page (AFAIK) and cleared off some statements which spoke more to TWiki's development history than to what it IS as a web application.  Those changes were then undone by 132.236.6.93 - someone who won't even identify themselves by name, but who claims "The test is relevance, not pleasance"   This condescending and page-owning attitude isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work as far as I know.  I reapplied my changes, and I intend to do so again as needed.
  
I recommend anyone interested in Foswiki work on Foswiki, and promote Foswiki, without going to lengths to disparaging TWiki.  If they want to write about the TWiki/Foswiki split, they can do that on a page about Foswiki, not a page about TWiki.
-- PaulReiber  02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, I totally agree with you. There is no reason to create a separated page for Foswiki.Jonas Fagundes (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please familiarize yourself with the history of this page, argued in part below, where a fragile consensus has emerged with a redirect such that this page at this point in time represents both projects, which are after all similar codebases, similar authors, etc.  The idea of being bold is that if you want to propose a wholesale reorganization and a split into two pages, do it.  I suspect, however, that a considerable amount of wiki-drama would emerge.  The claim that the material you removed is "fluff" requires substantiation. I require you to stop requiring things of me. -pbr 4/20/11  It would appear to be a vital part of the history of both projects, which are presented on this one page. due to a poor decision about redirecting foswiki here -pbr 4/20/12  A quick web search also reveals your affiliation and vigorous advocacy for one of these projects. A deeper search would reveal much more.  I feel almost a parent to both projects.  -pbr 4/20/12  Neutral parties would be far better editors. I am a neutral party - I love both projects/products however I'm saddened by how both groups behaved as well.  -pbr 4/20/12   The "I intend to do so again as needed" attitude is hardly consistent with wiki-culture. The tell-me-what-is-and-isnt-right attitude while speaking from only your IP address isn't consistent with wiki-culture either.  I had someone simply undo my updates without discussing that with me - not consistent with "wiki culture" either.  Eat your own dogfood.  -pbr 4/20/12  74.79.147.25 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles aren't about just what something currently is, but also what it was, how it evolved, etc.  For larger entities, articles are split as a single article would be too massive.  This is a fairly short article and the split was a fairly notable event in Twiki.  The current section on the fork does a good job of summarizing the event without giving undue weight.  Ravensfire (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ravensfire, no, the current article does not do a good job, the point is not the fork but foswiki itself. Both softwares should have their own page. There were 15 foswiki releases since the merge and the community is healthy and alive. I asked about that and no one gave any reason to not create the page. +1 to the Foswiki page creation. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Spartz removed the page and put it back the redirect, I put back your version (with the warning). How should I proceed to revert the old AFD decision? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  Ravensfire, Spartz, this is an interesting short description of what happened with opinion from both sides: http://www.cloudsurfing.com/site/3640-TWiki/reviews/384-TWiki-is-dead/ FALSE - I am not on the "TWiki" side - I was there, but did not take part in the "split".  I simply lived through it. -pbr 4/20/12 where you can check the level of the conversation (one side was presenting facts and the other was trashing talking, have a look to take your own conclusions). I checked both irc room on freenode.net. #foswiki is active (right now 39 active users and it has logs where you can verify the activity); #twiki is empty (only 9 users, no logs, no conversation in the last hour, there is a bot asking anyone that enters in the room to send any questions to the company support). I talked to the #foswiki guys and they were quite helpful and polite. (They even asked me to "note: don't make more enemies on wikipedia than we already have, please no matter how hard any comment by some of the wikipedia admins or deletionists might be: stay calm and professional.", what I think is a good advice for any discussion :) ). Jonas Fagundes (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The changeover in the developer community was a significant event in TWiki's history, and as such, warrants the current references in the article. They are matter-of-fact, very briefly describing the event, without undue bias. More details on how the TWiki community has progressed post-split would be welcome additions to the article. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letting the past stay in the past 

message: I applied edits some weeks ago intended to STOP airing the dirty laundry that happened years ago between the TWiki and Foswiki projects.  I'd like to re-apply those changes to the TWiki page without having them reverted by anonymous IP addresses.  Can I get an agreement on re-applying those now, since Foswiki has its own page, where its history can be documented, without having to sour TWiki's history?  I'll re-apply the changes in a month or so if I don't hear objections.
:The changeover in the developer community was a significant event in TWiki's history, and as such, warrants the current references in the article. They are matter-of-fact, very briefly describing the event, without undue bias. More details on how the TWiki community has progressed post-split would be welcome additions to the article. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foswiki has its own page now 

message: The Foswiki article is currently a fork of this article with slight modifications to represent the changes made to TWiki codebase over time. As these two articles significantly overlap in their scope (both mainly cover TWiki), I propose to merge all verifiable information about Foswiki's subsequent development into this article. Such merge would benefit both subjects:
*TWiki served the basis for Foswiki, so covering the latter would help to make the coverage of pre-split TWiki more thorough.
*Foswiki would eventually be covered the way its own genuine peculiarities would not be overshadowed by the common legacy.
Any comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Twiki developers do not accept this and both continue with Twiki, and have a somewhat distant relationship with Foswiki. The nominator of this merge has already nominated Foswiki for a failed AfD that has only just closed. They have even nominated a previous Foswiki redirect to Twiki for deletion. As the nominator of a supposed merge has already tried to delete the resultant redirect, one has to wonder just how effective such a merge would be in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Misrepresenting an issue is not a good way to go. I nominated the redirect for deletion because there was no content related to Foswiki. Now there is content, which is a copy of TWiki article with slight modifications. As the separate notability of Foswiki is at least questionable (see the closing comment of AfD), and several editors are passionate about the coverage of the article, I'm now seeking a compromise solution to avoid 4th AfD nomination. Now, as in AfD discussion you failed to draw any arguments, I would ask you to express at least something viable here. Do you state that these projects don't share significant part of codebase (and consequently their features)? Or may be you believe there is a good reason to describe the very same implementations of the same features in different articles? Or may be any other comment besides history of Foswiki and of its AfD and RfD nominations? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Foswiki]] to [[TWiki]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420142241/http://www.twiki.net:80/customers.html to http://twiki.net/customers.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141218064033/http://twiki.net/ to http://twiki.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on TWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505011451/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_36/b4048441.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_36/b4048441.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified