User talk:Kleinpecan

Hi,

You can't restore BLP violations with a message "Unexplained content removal". In this case the material was sourced to self-published source (not by the subject). Moreover, specifically "backtracked, saying misleadingly" is original research – in this case editorialising. Politrukki (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Politrukki: This hardly makes the situation any better, but I did not restore it intentionally; I just saw an IP removing text without an explanation and did not bother to actually check what was being removed. I will try to be more careful in the future. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Very experienced users, including some administrators, struggle to understand that blanking is vandalism only when it can be considered illegitimate. I remember that few years ago a prolific vandalism fighter was reverting "blanking", believing they were reverting vandalism, but ended up receiving a standard block for edit-warring. We make mistakes. We learn from them – or mistakes of others – and move on. Good luck on your journey, Politrukki (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If USA Today wrote about this, would it be appropriate to restore it?^[1] Kleinpecan (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Restore without modification? No. Carefully paraphrase and/or quote USA Today. Perhaps. A Good Wikipedian would collect all sources about the subject and then carefully analyse how much content, if any, would be due.

The reason why I checked Hume's bio in the first place was because of something I read about Hume in scholarly sources; Joseph Uscinski criticised PolitiFact for a fact-check of Hume where it gave a rating for a prediction of future – after the outlet acknowledged it's not a standard procedure. See: Uscinski, Joseph E. (2015-04-03). "The Epistemology of Fact Checking (Is Still Naìve): Rejoinder to Amazeen". Critical Review. 27 (2): 243–252. doi:10.1080/08913811.2015.1055892. Because the fact-check was not mentioned in Hume's bio, I decided against adding anything to the bio, assuming that other reliable sources have not touched the issue, rendering the topic somewhat niche. Still, I'm considering adding something in the PolitiFact article.

Based on my quick reading of your new source, Hume is only mentioned in one sentence, and is lumped together with others who made similar suggestions. The last sentence in same paragraph provides evidence against the claim of Antifa's involvement. However, that was not a claim specifically made by Hume, whose claim of "leftist extremists" was more vague. It would be a problem to mention Hume's claim without being able to note its dubiousness. Politrukki (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

CVU Academy Graduate

Congratulations from both myself and all of the instructors at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy on your successful completion of the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 98%. Well done! Thanks for helping to revert vandalism here at enwiki - a job that sometimes can feel overwhelming. I've also noticed your contributions to WP:WPSPAM as well - they are appreciated. Pahunkat (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And one last thing - at the start of the course, I stated I would copy the training page into your userspace for future reference. Would you like me to do that? Pahunkat (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to. Thank you for the training. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it was a pleasure! I've moved it to User:Kleinpecan/CVUA, feel free to move it to another title :-) Pahunkat (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kleinpecan (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

how do i make my own article for lucci? Symcbt123 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Symcbt123. Help:Your first article provides some useful guidance. However, I would encourage you to edit already existing articles instead of creating new ones. Creating an article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and unless you have a lot of experience, it is unlikely to result in anything other than failure, disappointment, and frustration—and I don't want that to happen to you.

If you still want to create an article, then first you need to determine whether Lucci is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Find at least three publications about Lucci that meet all of the following criteria:

1. Discuss him in significant depth (and not just mention him once or twice).
2. Are independent of the subject.
3. Published in a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a list of sources that are considered reliable. Note that those lists are not exhaustive, and if you can't find a specific source in them, it does not automatically mean that it is unreliable.
4. Published in a secondary source.

If you can't show that Lucci is notable, it is unlikely that an article about him will be created. Doing so will only waste your and others' time, so it is best to forget about it and find something else to do.

The article itself should be written from a neutral point of view. Do not put your personal opinions or analysis into the article. Do not editorialize and do not use loaded and promotional language (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). Make sure you provide a citation for every statement (see Help:Referencing for beginners), especially if the statement is controversial or potentially libelous (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Take a look at the article guidelines for musicians. Read some good and featured articles about musicians—study their layout, language, etc.

Once you are done, submit your draft for review by an experienced editor. Be patient—there are currently 4,500 pending submissions, so it might take some time before yours gets reviewed. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kleinpecan,

After you move an article into Draft space and notify the page creator, please tag the original page for CSD R2 speedy deletion. Cross-space redirects from main space are subject to deletion. I find Twinkle very useful in tagging pages for all types of deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wholly endorse your hatting there. I got a little carried away responding to a comment that looked like an unwarranted, drive by WP:PA, when WP:DFTT was the right call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for removing those details and further spam edits. l had created a template for it but it's not working for some reasons. I tried every method but nit working. I done same for article Spotify Greenroom and Sandes (software), which worked. Do you have any idea about why it's not working in this article? Anoop (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You already asked this question at the Teahouse, and I've replied to it there. (I also don't think your edits were "spam".) Kleinpecan (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kleinpecan,

It's important that every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/MFD/etc.), you post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. Otherwise, they might not know that the pages they have started have been deleted or why. This lack of information makes it likely that they will repeat any mistakes they have made with the deleted article.

I recommend you use Twinkle and set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then the program will post these notices for you which makes things easy. Please remember this in the future when you are tagging pages for deletion. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I deliberately did not notify them as most of those accounts haven't edited for several months and I doubt they will return. So, is it really needed? Kleinpecan (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Never realized that IABot would add archive links to websites that have excluded themselves from the Wayback Machine, thanks for noticing and resolving that. If you're interested, I've submitted a Phabricator ticket to hopefully stop the bot from doing that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

can you tell me why did you are again add me in spam project list. i already discussed you the reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheeraj budhori (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It was Newslinger who added you, not me. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw your message on my talk page encouraging me to make an account; I just wanted to let you know that this would likely be considered an institutional IP address (I am posting from one of the University of Toronto's Wi-Fi networks) and the contributions associated with this IP address are not mine. 138.51.251.221 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it would have been nice to keep the report open , pending a response to my request to protect the article. And yes, I'll file a separate report for that now. 2601:188:180:B8E0:BD4A:4B03:FD4C:CE7 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I somehow skipped over that part. Sorry about this. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Kleinpecan, I noticed that you restored my changes made on the Intuit page. I was hoping that you could provide a bit more context into your reasoning for this. I truly thought that the information I added to the product section realistically described Intuit’s products without injecting puffery. I understand why the section I added on “corporate responsibility” may have set off some red flags, however, their efforts are well documented and many other companies the size of Intuit have philanthropic mentions on their Wikipedia page. Thank you for the help.

Hi Klein, 2 citations were used. The first was Boston University Libraries, which labeled USA Today as Moderate. The second was University of Michigan Library, which described it as left of center and also left of the average respondent. Assuming both sources are in good faith, this puts USA Today as Center Left, which I would suggest is not a shock to anyone who reads it. This is not meant as disparaging, but as a fairer conclusion than straight Center. I shall leave it in your hands to decide if 'center and left' equals 'center' or 'center left'. Thanks for reading. 80.233.19.28 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• You're right; I've missed the second citation. Though combining those two sources to say that USA Today is center-left seems like synthesis to me, so I've changed it to "Center (moderate) / Left-leaning". Kleinpecan (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for reevaluating, I appreciate you taking the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.19.28 (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found that engaging those types of edit requests just leads to more drama all around. I normally just revert and give a NOTAFORUM warning to the user. I used to try to engage, but those types of editors, in general, aren't interested in learning why Wikipedia reports things the way it does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well hello, Seems like you just removed my edit on Talk:Joe Biden where I wrote:

Joe Biden's dementia symptoms 

There are many videos in which Biden speaks incoherently and basically what he's communicating doesn't make sense. He also has huge difficulties in finishing a statement where he would have to rephrase the sentence over and over. Such things are well known in Biden's behaviour and intensified in the recent period. Why the article about Joe Biden doesn't make any mention about such thing? . There are even specialists bringing the discussion over possible dementia symptoms . I don't know why the media rarely reports about these speeches, but I made my research and the videos aren't fake. For instance, recently Biden met the Pope and told him: You're the famous African-american baseball player in America (at 15:05). These things are definitely worth noting, but I can't do it since the article is protected. Since you forgot to justify your action, I have to ask here. Cheers! --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kotys ek Beos: did you read the messages I left on your talk page? Misrepresenting sources is a quick way to get blocked from this topic area. clpo13_(talk) 20:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't claim those were sources. I only brought up the discussion on a talk page. What you are doing and shaping this into is wrong.--Kotys ek Beos (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} If it is not sourced and cannot affect article space, I don't see why it would be suitable for discussion on the talk page. Talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. Also, according to AP, this video is out of context, and Biden was talking about Satchel Paige, an actual African-american baseball player. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Kotys ek Beos: Your source is WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Your videos are HTTP 404 and WP:RSPYT. And...nope. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In regard to this, while I personally agree with your reasoning, I am not sure outright removal is or was a good way to do that, especially when I would say it applies to majority of 'Keep' votes — a note or tagging would be better. Davide King (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a note would only introduce more clutter to this already unbearably long page. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please excuse that, and thank you, but people want their say at this stage. ~ cygnis insignis 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

About the Military Junta thing on the Conservapedia article., while I do not have any secondary sources, it should at least serve as an example? Especially since there are other citations from Conservapedia itself in the same article which are used to support statements (e.g. conservapedia's rules), this statement should not need a secondary source. Yours truly, ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A secondary source is needed to confirm that the claim about Joe Biden is false. (I have no doubt that it is, but I also have no doubt that some pedant will later remove it due to its lack of references and it being "original research".) And picking out this particular article seems like cherrypicking; there are a lot of stupid statements on Conservapedia, and, because we cannot copy the entire website on Wikipedia, we need to have secondary sources decide which examples are worth mentioning and which are not. There are also already plenty of examples in § Conflict with scientific views. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so it's a green cheese kind of thing, isn't it? I guess that's what I should expect from a political article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Talk:Jimmy Wales, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sundayclose (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you confused me with 104.174.4.161, whose edit I reverted? Kleinpecan (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm Sincere apologies. You actually fixed the problem. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us :-) Kleinpecan (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad I left my quizical comment in my own changelog two commits before this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saule_Omarova&diff=next&oldid=1058746791 - thank you for responding to it in your message with the correct way to do what I wanted to do! All the best, FatPhil (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Can you help me to find a consultant to make a industrial plant.not the regular manufacturers.I need a scientific supervision. Thank you Anucat123! (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I just wanted to let you know that I've reinstated your edit from 21:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC). With Rowling's article currently featured on the front page as part of the today's featured article segment, I was being overly cautious with restoring an older version as we had seen some disruption shortly after the TFA went live. I'm sorry about this, and your edit is now back in place. Feel free to ping me at my talk page if you ever need help elsewhere on wiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You missed this gem of a headline in your edit summary on removing "Tasik Herbal": "How A lot Does the US Owe in Reparations for the COVID-19 Bio-Assault?" ;-).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your revert on the Russian invasion page appears to be using a source which is not accurate (it looks like the NPR one is in error). The statement in the lead section which you reverted seems to be incorrect: "...including a ban on the words "war" and "invasion"". However, when you read the Russian Wikipedia article for the Invasion article (if you read Russian) then the word Invasion is used as the title of the article. Possibly you can alter the wording in the lead section of the English version of this article to something which accurately reflects that Russian Wikipedia uses the word "Invasion" without censorship and without being banned. The current version of the English language lead section appears to be incorrect. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The statement about the ban on the words war and invasion is accurate, and there are sources other than NPR, such as Meduza and RBC, that talk about it. The Russian Wikipedia has repeatedly been threatened with a block by Roskomnadzor, has been fined for 4 million rubles by a court, and at least one person has been doxed and arrested for his Wikipedia edits, which all seems like censorship to me. Regardless, mentioning the Russian Wikipedia in the lead without sources talking about it would be synthesis. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion taking place here may be of interest to you. The corresponding material at Scott Ritter has been removed until consensus is reached at the Open Discussion page. DO NOT restore the material until agreement fully in your favor has been reached. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you make a redirect of an older article to a newer one and not the other way around? Thanks. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I thought that the prose in the newer article was better, it had a more extensive edit history and was already linked to from several other pages. I didn't check when those articles were created. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Not pa problem. In those cases one can always upgrade the original article, especially when the original article had more content. Plus the original page was linked from other two wikipedia pages in Russian and Ukrainian (since all three were created by the same user). With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 17:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You accidentally cloned a paragraph in this edit, I've fixed it. I assume it was an accident (happened to me too once or twice). Just noting. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the 82.132.192.0/18 range for three years. The history of WP:DE in that range, much of which looks like him, is extremely long. As is the already existing block log for the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You have made a contribution to the DDoS-Guard page which restores the old text on it. However, you have not specified why you have done this, and what was wrong with the previous text.

As far as I see, there are already a lot of mentions of Meduza and Brian Krebs on the page. All the information that you added is already on the page. And I don't think you can use sources like Brian Krebs or Meduza to fully describe the company. There are a lot of other sources that show what this company is, and what it does. Brian Krebs and Meduza are investigators. So, if you want to use them as a source, create an Investigation or a similar section, and describe everything you need there.

Also, your contribution has removed information I previously added to the page without any explanation.

@Xml512 Xmp512 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• "All the information that you added is already on the page"—yes, that's what lead sections are for. They should summarize the entire article.
• I've removed the two sentences in the lead because they're unsourced, and because they're somewhat promotional and generally not suited for an encyclopedia (in my opinion). Kleinpecan (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed your recient change on the Kiwi Farms page. That page says that a new Russian Kiwi Farms's domain was registered on July 12, 2022. It's not right, it was registered on July 12, 2021. Please, change. Xmp512 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• The AP article cited on Kiwi Farms does not specify the year when the domain name was registered. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  You can check it there: https://www.whois.com/whois/kiwifarms.ru Xmp512 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've fixed it now. FYI, it's generally better to request edits on the article's talk page, rather than its individual editors' talk pages. Kleinpecan (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

the reasoning behind the change was that it’s not a real group with a charter and incorporation documents and a business card. It’s a bunch of cartoon dogs organized around a hashtag and jokes. The four-letter hashtag is central. I’m not sure the “initialism” rules apply to imaginary entities. jengod (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

While I do not think what was added by the IP in the article belongs there in the history section (also own commentary), can you explain this edit summary? Are you describing Reuters as a "shit source"? Mellk (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should've phrased the edit summary more carefully. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, understood. Mellk (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sindarin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umlaut. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Primate research and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Primate research until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. May1787 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You too. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of overlap between two editors over at The Grayzone and Aaron Maté in content, style, engagement, and even usernames. Any thoughts? feel free to delete this and email if that is preferable.--Hobomok (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC).

I thought that too, but I don't yet think there's sufficient evidence to conclusively link those two accounts. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits made by other people more than three times within 24 hours as you did in on an article page. Madame Necker (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My friend, political view points based on hatred and unverified claims is not accepted in the topic, pls don't add it. Mahan122 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NAFO (group), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO have been called "an actual tactical event against a nation state"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NAFO (group). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, NAFO (group)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Portal:Current_events/2022_October_29. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

For having your profile covered in anti-vandalism and anti-spam content, proud of your fight against this, your redirection of Russia to Nazi Germany is pretty shameful. Get a grip and don't do that sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2022_October_29&diff=next&oldid=1118902053

Sp00n exe (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sp00n exe: thank you for saying this and thanks again to the IP editor who reverted vandalism. Kleinpecan, do you have any explanation for your behaviour? Politrukki (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at their edit history. They have an agenda.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol at the accounts showing up here. Volunteer Marek 13:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Responding with personal attacks to a valid question about obviously terrible behavior? Good man. AzzAzeL-US (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The associated press said Russia's current military levels are 1.15 million active duty and will elevate the number to 1.5 by 2026, and world population review site said Russia's combined military amounts to 3.6 million. I would make the adjustment but the page is locked, and so is the article listing the militaries around the world. - [[User:Mewyprime, 9:29 PM, February 3rd — Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The two pages i mentioned needed to be addressed, so unlock them that way others can edit or make the changes yourself as an admin. - User:Mewyprime, 1:37 AM, February 7th 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Mewyprime, hello and sorry for the late reply. I'm not an admin and I cannot "unlock" pages. You should make an edit request on the article's talk page or request that the article be unprotected at WP:RFUP. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Kiwifarms.net has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2 § Kiwifarms.net until a consensus is reached. Mizutani The Pokemon (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)