I would like to apply for a permanent IP block exemption. As noted above, I recently had a temporary IP block exemption. This trial period was, I believe, conducted successfully. I am now applying for a permanent exemption, for the same reasons, i.e. I am shortly about to go on holiday and will be using my VPS, and Q4 of WP:BLOCKFAQ still applies. Many thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent exemptions are not granted; the most that you can get is a year. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @331dot. Can I then please get the exemption for the next year? Kiwipete (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all set. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions!! :) xRozuRozu • teacups 05:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 07:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you want me to cite a source for the distance settlements are away from a village? Anybody who knows how to read a map can check this for themselves, so what source could I even cite? Me using the measure distance tool on Google Maps? I'm sorry if I did actually make a mistake, but it can't be that I didn't cite a source for something like this, because, I've never seen a source cited for the distance between a village and another settlement. Fortek67 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite a map, you need to make sure that it specifies the actual distance between the two towns. Please see here for the discussion of this issue. Kiwipete (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still useful information to add but there is little to no reliable sources on things like this, especially for tiny villages like Sobolice. I didn't know that this won't be needed anymore and I just assumed that it is a standard for all articles to contain this information. Fortek67 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiwipete, I hope you're well. I recently came across a number of your edits while browsing Wikipedia—specifically on articles about various towns and villages in Poland. Out of curiosity, I checked your user contributions and was genuinely astonished to see that you've made over 240,000 edits in just a few years. That's an incredible volume of work! As someone who's not very familiar with how editing on Wikipedia works, I was wondering if you’d be open to sharing a bit about your process. Given the scale and consistency of your contributions, I couldn't help but wonder: are you using some form of automation or semi-automated tools to assist with your edits? And if so, is that kind of approach generally permitted within Wikipedia’s guidelines? Again, I don’t mean to intrude—I'm just genuinely curious. Your dedication, especially in covering what appears to be nearly every city and village in Poland, is impressive, and I’d love to understand how this kind of systematic editing is done. Thanks in advance for your time, and apologies if this is a naïve question! Best regards,

Marcin Nowak Marcinnowak123 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	`````` Marcinnowak123 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiwipete,

Thanks again for your ongoing efforts on Wikipedia—your sheer volume of edits continues to stand out, especially in the area of Polish towns and villages.

After spending more time reviewing your contributions, I noticed that a significant portion of your edits involve shortening articles, formatting changes, or making surface-level adjustments, often to entries about very small settlements—even ones with fewer than 100 residents. These edits are incredibly consistent in pattern but usually don’t include substantial additions to the content itself.

I wanted to ask: what drives this particular editing approach? Is there a broader purpose behind this kind of editing—such as aligning all these articles to a certain standard, cleaning up older content, or something else entirely?

Also, how are you able to do this at such frequency and scale? I’m not asking again about tools or automation (as I did previously), but more about what motivates you to focus on these micro-level changes across so many entries, when in many cases the changes might seem minor or even imperceptible to the average reader.

Genuinely curious to understand more about the philosophy or rationale behind your work.

All the best, Marcin Nowak Marcinnowak123 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcin, thanks a lot for your comments. The short answer to your first question "are you using some form of automation or semi-automated tools" is simple - AWB. This is a tool that allows semi-automated edits to be made to articles on the English (and perhaps other) wikipedias. This also allows for the "frequency and scale" that you refer to. You have to ask for, and be given, permission to use it. As far as your other questions, yes you're right that I'm not making many changes to the content, rather I'm trying to ensure that these articles have a consistent style. I don't know that I have any particular "philosophy", but maybe I exhibit behaviour described elsewhere as being gnome-like. Kind regards, Kiwipete (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Thanks for your comment, that clears up a lot, my main theory at the beginning, was that accounts like yours may be made by bots, that aim to later sell the accounts for people who aim to troll other Wikipedia pages, with either making funny trolls like changing famous peoples' height to make them shorter, or more malicious like promoting extremist ideologies or antisemitism etc. What enforced my initial belief was that you have set on your account that you dont understand Polish (which is unexpected for an account that made multiple edits on the article of every single polish town and village), that all the changes were very similar format changes with no addition to the text of the article and that I noticed that all Wikipedia pages for polish towns are translated into languages in no way related to Polish, with very little speakers of that language living in Poland, even for towns with less than 100 people (in particular Hokkien, South Azerbaijani, Persian, Greek, French, Dutch, Chechen, Cebuano, Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, obviously the latter 3 are more believable since there are migrants from those countries in Poland, but the size of villages these edits were made under was very difficult to explain for a person who doesn’t really know much about wikipedia).

Since you clearly now more than me about wikipedia, I'd like to ask you about your opinion about the thing I just mentioned about the languages, all these articles about all villages in Poland, even those with less than 100 people are translated into the same languages (Hokkien, South Azerbaijani, Persian, Greek, French, Dutch, Chechen, Cebuano, Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian), obviously not all of them are translated into these languages, but they are repeating, if you pick 10 random articles on any Polish village, I guarantee all of them will be translated into at least half of these languages, from what I`ve understood from reading the article for the AWB, it doesnt allow automatic translation, and I havent noticed such function on the images provided in the article, so if either it does or there is some other method these account use, I'd be very grateful for an explanation (I`ve noticed that some of the accounts are by accounts labeled by bots, for example Hokkien was by a bot which linked to an account that explained that the author does it to preserve his dying language, which is cool ig, but thats not the same for french for example, which are human added)

PS sorry if these concerns and questions seem stupid, Im really not that knowledgeable on Wikipedia and how it works exactly, Im like a typical wikipedia user that just reads about an event they dont know about, who noticed a very weird pattern looking at neighbouring villages of Warsaw, and looking at edit history led me to your account, which had edited almost every Polish city and village (if not every)

Best regards,

Marcin Marcinnowak123 (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i meant to say "since you clearly know more than me" not "since you clearly now more than me" Marcinnowak123 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also i forgot to mention tatar language, it also appears quite often Marcinnowak123 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hurricane Wind and Fire was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2025 Classic Lorient Agglomération and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kiwipete! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Tomorrow ... Jacinda Ardern on The Graham Norton Show

Piñanana (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kiwipete. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:DOYSTYLE does it say that section names may never be revised? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here - "Any change to the page layout that would be a deviation from the template should be discussed on this project's talk page before such change is made. Standard date page layout includes the sections: Events, Births, Deaths, Holidays and observances, and External links." Kiwipete (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't see how you could see that as applicable but to save a pointless argument I will propose the change at the talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw this and a few similar reversions. You should see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guilherme Gava Bergami. I think you might want to restore Phil's edits.

Cheers, mate! Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toddst1 - yes, I did see that investigation. It's not clear to me at all why that user was blocked. Regardless, the entries I restored seem to be valid as far as DOY articles go. Also, Phil didn't explain in his edit summaries why he removed those entries. I'll wait to see if anything further happens. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't too clear. See [1] Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the user's contributions as well. Still clear as mud to me :). Kiwipete (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK is a policy. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Socks' edits are reverted as a matter of course, whether they are good or not. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that is the reason for the block. I have no strong feelings about the DOY edits though. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the explanation. I see that my edits, all done in good faith, are still in place :) Kiwipete (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith wasn't in question. You're one of the more prominent protectors of the DOY project and your intent is without question. I didn't undo them out of respect. I just thought this was a nuance you weren't aware of. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I am curious about though, and something you have reverted me for a handful of time, why do the edit notices say that all entries must have sourced to RS if it is not convention to require them to be sourced? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gurkubondinn - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "edit notices". Do you mean the edit summary I use when reverting changes, or maybe the Page Notice that is displayed at the top of the page whenever editing a DOY article? The main requirement for adding new entries to DOY articles is WP:DOYCITE - if memory serves me right, this has been around for longer than I've been involved with the DOY project. Todd, do you know a bit more about the history of this requirement? Kiwipete (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwipete - no, I meant the WP:EDNO template {{DOY page notice}}, which says:

Citations required: Each addition to this page must include a direct citation from a reliable source. Simply providing a wikilink is insufficient; entries without direct sources will be removed.

That notice (sometimes there are also comments in the page mentioning this) is why I reverted uncited additions to DOY pages in the past when I came across them in the PCR queue. Until you reverted me a handful of times, and I started leaving them alone because I figured that you probably knew this better than me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. That's the "page notice" that I referred to. Do you mean to say that you have reverted uncited additions to DOY articles, and that I have then reverted your revision? Do you have an example? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- didn't see that you mentioned "page notice". But I found one of these reverts: Diff/1332993604. Just to be clear, I'm not criticising you or anything -- you clearly know more about this than I do. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's no worries at all, @Gurkubondinn, hopefully this is a learning opportunity for all of us. Yes, I've made reverts like that one you mention a few times. Hopefully my edit summary is clear enough - "adding year of birth or death without a citation is a long-standing accepted practice". Kiwipete (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fart. Thanks for finding it. I must have clicked the wrong diff to undo. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find direct links to an article, rather than those that use a template such as {{UCI team code}} which generates a link? As an example of what I mean, please see this edit. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Do a regex source search for a wikilink to the subject. So for that example use insource:/\[\[Equipe Nürnberger Versicherung/ — KylieTastic (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my addition of the date of Operation Biting to the February 27 events list. My addition referenced the Operation Biting Wikipedia entry, and although it says that that is not in itself a valid verification, I'm pressed to know what other verification is required, and how to acceptably add it. Cheers Owengwynne (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could do the same edit as this that you made to Operation Biting itself. I would recommend using the quote-page and quote parameters for the {{cite book}} template. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, and having seen a few of the changes earlier, I think the old Liv Racing team and the unrelated Liv AlUla Jayco were fused together at Template:Cycling data LIV, following revision 1269603741. Template:Cycling data LAJ has all the Liv AlUla Jayco years (dating back to 2012, when known as Orica), but it might be a pain in the backside to get everything where they ought to be, as I think LIV had about 600 transclusions when I had a look earlier. Craig(talk) 23:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craig, thanks for your comments. Yes, I was aware (somewhat) of the history of these templates. I notice, for example, that Template:Cycling data LIV and Template:Cycling data LAJ both have Liv AlUla Jayco as their main article. What I have done is update Template:Cycling data DSB which is the template for Liv Racing TeqFind with a fully cited list of team names over the years of its existence. I'm now trying to get all references to the LIV template updated to use the (now complete) DSB template. It's a bit of a chore, but as long as I don't make any noticeable stuff-ups, I'll keep on with this. Once that is done, then the LIV/LAJ templates can be merged/updated. One more thing I noticed, there is a Template:Cycling data BEX women which is a redirect to LAJ. That may be the same way to handle the LIV template as well. Please keep an eye on what I'm up to, and let me know if I make any mistakes! Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was easiest when the men's and women's Jayco teams shared the same name and same team code, as you had GEC/BEX/JAY men and GEC/BEX/JAY women! When the women's team added Liv as a team sponsor for 2024, the codes split off from one another. JAY women went to LAJ (I was responsible for that move), before LIV got fused with the old DSB/Rabo Women/WM3/WaowDeals/Liv Racing (I think that's most of the sponsors for that team) and Liv AlUla Jayco. The men's team is still at JAY men, as JAY relates to the Team Jayco–AIS that was around from 2006 to 2012. So many common codes! Craig(talk) 20:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@XyZAn - could you please comment here, in light of the various contributions you've made? Do you have any reliable source for this edit you made to Liv Racing TeqFind, especially the claim "merged with Team Jayco–AlUla"? This may be contributing to the confusion surrounding the various team with Liv in their names. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it appears that XyZAn is no longer active. Anyway, I've found a citation myself - Team Jayco-AlUla confirms 4 riders joining after Liv Racing TeqFind merger. This seems to be more than riders simply moving from one team to another at the end of a season, so I'll try to write a bit of prose in the two teams' articles. In the meantime, I'm still fixing links to make sure that the correct teams are referred to. Kiwipete (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for correcting my previous changes.

I was wondering though, how come does my event on the 2 December you just removed work on the article for the year 1416 but not the with date 2 December?

You have sometimes been correcting me and I’m grateful for that. Feels good when it actually work and my change can stay.

Thanks in advance and I wish you a good day.

Regards,

Valominen Valominen (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valominen, thanks for your feedback. It's nice to know that the advice I try to provide is helpful. I think your question is - why has this entry been removed from December 2, but is present in 1416? The DOY (day of year) articles, including December 2, are "managed", if you like, by the WP:DOY project. This project, which I belong to, has adopted some requirements to ensure that these articles remain as high-quality as possible. Thus, WP:DOYCITE requires that all new entries have an inline citation, and WP:EVENTDOY additionally requires that the event being referred to has its own article in Wikipedia. While your entry has wikilinks for Council of Constance, Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor, Hussite Wars and Jan Žižka, which are all notable in their own rights, there is no article specifically about the text you include - "unifies the fractured Catholic Church and isolates the Bohemian reformers". As far as the 1416 article is concerned, you can see on its talk page that it is managed by, among others, the WP:YEARS project. That project may well have different requirements that determine what is accepted or not for that and other related articles. Sorry for the long-winded explanation, but I hope it makes sense to you. All the best for your edits in the future. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]