User Talk: Kiwipete

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

{{Talkheader|search=yes}}
{| align="center" style="background: #e1e1e1; border: 2px solid red;" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5"
|
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" align="center"
|align="center" bgcolor="red"|'''WELCOME!'''
|-
|align="left" style="background: white; border:1px solid red; font-size: 85%;"|Hello, and welcome to my talk page. I will be glad to discuss anything with you. Click here ↗ to start a new discussion. I respond on my own talk page, so you may wish to add me to your watchlist once you've left a message for me. Have a great day.
|}
|}

Help me!

{{admin help|answered=yes}}

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)
:Permanent exemptions are not granted; the most that you can get is a year. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks @331dot. Can I then please get the exemption for the next year? Kiwipete (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, all set. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

{{-}}

A cup of tea for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | thank you for your contributions!! :) '''x'''RozuRozu • '''''t'''ea'''c'''ups ↗'' 05:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
|}

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

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. {{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion ↗.}} Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I should have to cite a source to add the distance a village is away from another village/town

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)

: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)
::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)

Inquiry About Your Extensive Wikipedia Contributions

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)

:I was wondering this as well - I was looking at the times of the edits, and it looked as though Kiwipete either does not sleep (lol) or must use some sort of automation tool. I am new to this and am curious as well, as I am finding myself making more and more edits. ShepGlennon (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Marcinnowak123, I'm sorry, I seem not to have answered your question, unless I did so somewhere else. It took a further prompt from @ShepGlennon to make me notice. In reply, I frequently use AWB ↗, an editing tool that allows rapid alterations to be made to Wikipedia articles. This can sometimes allow up to, say, 500 pages per hour to be edited. I can assure you, though, that I do sleep :) I have a bit more time on my hands these days while I am between jobs. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::haha I'm glad you sleep! I find myself using Wikipedia as my midnight revenge procrastination. ShepGlennon (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | `````` Marcinnowak123 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
|}

Follow-up on Your Editing Work on Polish Localities

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)

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

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

New Zealand Tomorrow

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

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

Happy First Edit Anniversary Kiwipete 🎉

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)

WP:DOYSTYLE

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

: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)
::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)

DOY reversions

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)

: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)
::Yeah, it wasn't too clear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Feb3herme1 ↗ Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I saw the user's contributions as well. Still clear as mud to me :). Kiwipete (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::::WP:SOCK ↗ is a policy. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yup. Socks' edits are reverted as a matter of course, whether they are good or not. Toddst1 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::{{u|Kiwipete}} - no, I meant the WP:EDNO ↗ template {{tlx|DOY page notice}}, which says:
:::::::::{{tqb|'''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)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::::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)
::::::::::::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)

And then there's this

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

Links to an article

{{Help me-helped}}
How can I find ''direct'' links to an article, rather than those that use a template such as {{template|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)

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

What is needed where a DOYCITE inline citation is required?

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)

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

Liv team data

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)

: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)

::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)
:::@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)
::::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)

2 december

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)

: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)

Help with updating population figures

Hi, could I please ask for your help (if you can) to delete all of the detailed census tables (see this discussion ↗)? I have already done one, citing population source for Polska w Liczbach. (see this diff ↗). Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

:I'll reply at the discussion. Kiwipete (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

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 08:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please submit a new request by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. {{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion ↗.}} Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2nd

Hello!
Thank you for correcting me on my revision for "Sizdah Be-dar" on April 2nd. I understand what was wrong, but is there any other place I could put it? I looked at March 21, which had the Vernal Equinox. That does vary, so it linked March 20 as well. Sizdah Be-dar will vary by only 1 day, as it is 13 days after the equinox. Could I possibly link April 1st as well? If there is a discussion for this, please link. ~2026-20125-47 ↗ (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, no sorry, I don't know where else you could put this holiday. As you realise, the holidays section is for holidays that occur on the same day each year, based on the Gregorian calendar. You could ask at the talk page of WP:DOY ↗ to reach a broader audience. Kiwipete (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Three}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Archive URLs

{{Help me-helped}}
I added archive URLs in this edit ↗, but it was a very manual process. I first had to copy the URL from the original citation, go to https://web.archive.org/web/ ↗, enter the url, wait for the archive URL to be generated, and then copy the archive URL (along with archive date and url status parameters) back into the original citation. Is there any way that this process can be (semi-)automated? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:Best I can think of is telling User:InternetArchiveBot to run on a specific article. ↗ It's not perfect but I think it's something like this that you're looking for.
:Also a tip is that you often do not need to generate a new archive URL; many are already archived and searching for them on archive.org can quickly get you a fully functional archive link. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley<math>\lor</math>investigate ↗ᛅ 03:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Minor barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Awarded for being one of the top ten "pending changes" reviewers ↗ in the last thirty days. Thank you!  — '''''MWFwiki''''' (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

April 6 ↗

It is standard to leave one space after *. Regards Denisarona (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, I know, @Denisarona, but it is ''not'' standard to change a year, or to insert a space into wikilink markup. Also, if you insist on making these sorts of edits, please do so to ''all'' DOY articles, preferable using a tool like AWB ↗. Thanks to @Favonian for trying to fix one of your blunders. Kiwipete (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

9 December

I have no problem with that; I'll discuss it with anyone, and I'll discuss it with you personally because I don't receive Wikipedia notifications.
The most important final at the club level in the most important sport in the world. Are we really not going to include it in the historical events section? ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your Removal of my Major Event Listing on the Shooting of Vernon Jordan

You've stated that there needs to be a page about an event for me to include it in the EVENTDOY page, but there are two reasons why I am confused: #1 there is a subsection on the Wikipedia pages for each of the two figures I have linked to regarding this shooting. #2 other edits on EVENTDOY pages do not have this requirement. For instance, on this same page (May 29th), when a large ship has sunk, there is no page dedicated exclusively to the sinking of this ship. It merely links to the page for this ship. Can you please assist me in clarifying this? ShepGlennon (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @ShepGlennon, re #1, I'm not sure what you mean by "a subsection on the Wikipedia pages for each of the two figures" - if you mean there are articles about the two men, then yes, that is correct. But that is not sufficient to justify an entry for an event involving them both. Re #2, there are many entries across all DOY articles which were in place before these rules were agreed upon. This was part of the reason why there is now a "Please read before editing" notice at the top of each page when you edit it. There are also editors who have adopted the task of bringing these articles up-to-date. I hope this helps. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::what I meant by a subsection (apologies, I do not know the official term) on the Wikipedia pages for each is that there is a Heading about the assassination attempt on each of their pages. Sometimes, rather than make an entirely new article, people add chapters to Wikipedia pages referring to important historical events, and when people click on a link to that event, it takes them directly to that chapter, rather than to the top of the articles about the person/place/thing or its own Wikipedia page. ShepGlennon (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi @ShepGlennon, I've had a look at the articles, and I see what you mean. However, I think the requirements of WP:EVENTDOY ↗ are quite clear - "Events ... should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". I don't recall coming across entries which are links to a section, rather than an entire article. I would suggest you raise this at the WP:DOY ↗ talk page - you may get a broader range of replies. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Login page no longer displays

{{Helpme-helped}}
I use the Pale Moon ↗ browser for all my Wikipedia work. But since this morning, when I click the Login link, a page with an error message is displayed. The message is "This browser does not support security key authentication, or it is not available for this website. Please try with a different browser. Read more". I am having to use Firefox ↗ to post this message. Kiwipete (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

:You can try and ask at WP:VPT ↗, but I believe the answer will be that it doesn't support Passkey ↗s yet so Wikipedia doesn't like it - <kbd style="color: Red;">Rich</kbd>T|C ↗|E-Mail ↗ 21:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, @Rich Smith. I see that the issue has already been reported - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_login_problems_with_Pale_Moon_and_Duck_Duck_Go_browsers ↗. Kiwipete (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarify on WP:EVENTDOY ↗ per revision of my edit

Hi, you recently undid ↗ one of my edits, citing EVENTDOY:

> Events, holidays and observances, if notable enough for inclusion, should be the subject of a Wikipedia article (or in the case of religious feasts, mentioned in a linked article). Holidays and observances should also be limited to those that occur on the same date annually, and observances to those that are currently celebrated (not the date it was once celebrated or will be celebrated).

"Events...should be subject of a Wikipedia article". The event is mentioned on the linked article. Or, is it the case that there must exist an article specifically about the event mentioned (e.g. canonization of St. Dominic)? Please clarify. Thanks. Moiré (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Moire9, yes, even though Saint Dominic ↗ and Pope Gregory IX ↗ are themselves notable, there needs to be a separate article specifically about Dominic's canonization. I hope that helps. Kind regards, Kiwipete (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, noted. Moiré (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Podkarpackie Voivodeship#Requested move 18 June 2026 ↗

Kiwipete, sorry to bother you but you still haven't commented your thoughts on this RM... I didn't really understood what you said here ↗. RM will probably close today btw. Fortek67 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Event 7 August 1974

Hello - Would it be acceptable if the Event entry was written with the subject of the linked Wikipedia article Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland ↗ as the lead and followed by the info on the victim? From the MOS I believe a Shoot to kill policy is "worthy of notice", it certainly contains "reliable sources", had "significant coverage" and is "independent of the subject".

I was just adding another reference from the BBC when the entry was reverted: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-55750776. So there would be at least two reliable sources (BBC News and BFBS Forces News) which is "a trusted, independent broadcaster reporting on defence, security and the UK Armed Forces." I think this entry fits the MOS definition of Wikipedia:Be bold ↗ as it identifies a victim of the linked article. What do you think? Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Palisades1, thanks for your question. I've had another look, at both the entry you added, and at Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland ↗. I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything that meets the requirement of WP:EVENTDOY ↗. Patrick McElhone himself does not have a wiki page, otherwise he could be added to the Deaths section. I've noticed lots of your edits to DOY articles, all of which are well written and cited, but I think this is one that does not make the cut. All the best, Kiwipete (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look at material for a page on McElhone.Palisades1 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Citations on March 1 ↗

Thanks for pointing out the policy on citations in date articles -- somehow I missed the page notice stating the policy. That said, only about 27% of the items on the March 1 ↗ page have citations. Is anyone working on updating the older items? --Macrakis (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Macrakis, I'm very glad you understand the policy. I have to say that I also didn't initially notice the page notice, but now it's second nature to me. You're correct - there are still a large number of uncited entries. There is a small but very dedicated group of editors working to add citations. You can see them here ↗. You would be more than welcome to join them :). Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)