Thisrequest for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the{{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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 ofWP: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 •teacups05:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part ofGlobal reminder bot to let you know that yourWP: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 tom:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.Leaderbot (talk)19:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly doyou 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 seehere 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 likeSobolice. 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 NowakMarcinnowak123 (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 NowakMarcinnowak123 (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 beinggnome-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,

MarcinMarcinnowak123 (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 oftenMarcinnowak123 (talk)19:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting 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 toArticles 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 subjectqualifies 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 aboutmistakes 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 resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft: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 andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia'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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, 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 onThe 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 inWP: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 thetemplate should be discussed onthis project's talk pagebefore 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 sawthis and a few similar reversions. You should seeWikipedia: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 ingood 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 isWP: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 theWP:EDNO template{{DOY page notice}}, which says:

Citations required: Each addition to this page must include a direct citation from areliable source. Simply providing a wikilinkis 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]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC