Hello Matza Pizza!Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. If you decide that you need help, check outGetting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember tosign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best toalways fill in theedit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!Hipal (talk)00:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial •The five pillars of Wikipedia How to:edit a page •upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view •Reliable sources Verifiability •Citing sources •No original research What Wikipedia is not •Biographies of living persons Manual of Style •Three-revert rule •Sock puppetry Copyrights •Fair use •Image use policy External links •Spam •Vandalism Deletion policy •Conflict of interest •Notability The Community Build consensus •Resolving disputes Assume good faith •Civility •Etiquette No personal attacks •No legal threats Community Portal •Village pump Signpost •IRC channels •Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing •Help develop an article Pages needing attention •Peer review Join a WikiProject •Translating articles Cleaning up:General •Spam •Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates •Categories •Stubs User pages •Talk pages Tools •User scripts

HiMatza Pizza! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest atthe Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors likeCordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered byHostBot on behalf of theTeahouse hosts 16:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Matza Pizza (talk)00:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MP, I would suggest raising your concerns related to the Pool article on the talk page. I think your concerns may be valid but probably need to be translated into Wiki policy/guideline based arguments. Also, consider that rephrasing material is likely easier for other editors to accept vs removal. It would be helpful if those who oppose your changes would give better reasons but since you are the person making a change from the stable version of the text, per Wiki policy the burden to get consensus falls on you, not them. One final thing, and I haven't see you do this so this is only a heads up, when posting on the talk page be sure to stick to the facts of the article, not the editors. If, as an example, you think a sentence comes off as biased or not-IMPARTIAL, then say, "this sentence is not impartial". Don't say, "[editor] is trying to disparage Pool" or "[editor] is pushing a biased POV". My feeling is the Rittenhouse material has enough references to make it hard to remove as UNDUE though I'm not 100% there. You could run a RfC but it would take a better argument than just, "biased".Springee (talk)13:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:I appreciate the head's up. I actually do not think that I had run afoul of some of the specifics you mentioned, although I have others. I also am not an expert on the Wikipedia rulebook, which puts me behind the 8 ball. Either way, being reverted by an editor who gives a reason which is blatantly false on its face byany definition (such as claiming that I had pegged NBC as "NRS", which anyone can see is false) is more than a little irritating. I spend considerable time figuring out how to improve an article, only to have someone revert it without spending even a moment figuring out what he is doing. If nothing else, such behavior is amazingly rude.

Whatever. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as they openly admit, but we shouldn't have bad actors actively trying to undermine the work of those who are actually trying to make WP into something useful.Matza Pizza (talk)13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration. It's always best when someone reverting a change that includes a long edit note/justification replies in kind. Still, the burden is on you, not them. I would suggest starting a specific talk page topic. Try to lay out the issues you see and also try to find a compromise solution.Springee (talk)14:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:Idid create a Talk page about this topic - it's the one we have all been writing on. I started it after disputing the reliability of the Tim Pool article.But yeah, it is what it is. Certain editors - not naming any names now - have earned a reputation of wholesale reversions based upon an a mix of arrogance, nastiness, and unrecognized bias. I probably need my head examined for spending as much time on editing as I have to begin with, considering that there are those who get off on destroying others' work without valid reason. My getting worked up this morning is a sign that I should remove myself from such matters for a while.Matza Pizza (talk)14:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reverting the edit where you say "violent protesters". Just as it's problematic to imply Rittenhouse was acting in someway other than self defense, we shouldn't imply the protesters were violent. My personal opinion is the first one was acting aggressive and provoking but I hadn't seen him do anything that would qualify as violent. It's easy to make a case that the other two were acting in good faith to detain someone fleeing the scene of a crime. Flip it around and say, if they had all lived could a legal case be made against them? For the latter two, one who did live, I would say no.Springee (talk)16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:Fair enough. Problem is, I'm exhausted, and not everyone is trying to work this out satisfactorally the way that you are. Can you figure out a way to lighten the accusatory tone against Rittenhouse - and by extension, Pool - while reversing my edit? I have slept a whopping 45 minutes in the last 24+ hours, and I need to get some shut eye.

Since you have been so friendly, helpful, and accomodating, I will ask you to come up with something to make the paragraph more appropriate. And if you can't, and just simply revert it to the hang-Rittenhouse version? As long as it comes from you, I'll feel a lot better about it. But hopefully you can find something - anything - to change the horribly unfair tone used to describe Rittenhouse's actions.

Thank you, as always.Matza Pizza (talk)16:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:I goofed up the ping just above, thus again demonstrating that my WP technical skills are around on the level of my proficiency in computers. It isn't good :)Matza Pizza (talk)16:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't have a good suggestion on Rittenhouse but do revert those. It shows good faith on your part and that your intent isn't to edit war (wp:3RR). FYI, and perhaps you already know this, if someone types something in all caps like BOLD, that means they are referencing a policy/guideline/other page. So BOLD referenceswp:BOLD. If you use the search bar and type "BOLD" you will getEmphasis (typography). Including "wp:" in front tells the system you are looking for a wikipedia page, not an article page. Anyway, the problem you are going to run into is that page is politically contentious. As such we all have to be on good behavior and follow the rules. What are the rules you might ask, well they are "the rules". You just have to learn them... but they aren't really written down in some easy to use place. They are a mix of policy pages, guideline pages, essays etc. I think a lot of potentially good editors leave because they see something wrong, try to fix it, get thwarted by a seasoned editor who may not be "correct" but knows how to navigate Wikipedia and gets the troublesome newbe branded a POV pusher or similar. Net result more entrenchment, less diversity of views. A good rule of thumb that an admin taught me is only 1 revert per day. See the 3RR link to understand what counts as a revert and understand that multiple changes back to back only count as 1 change. Hope that helps.Springee (talk)16:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:I will follow your suggestion because it came from you. Yes, it seems obvious that some people give up on trying to contribute to Wikipedia, because it can be made utterly maddening by those who would prefer to bully instead of raise up and cooperate - and I suspect the overlap rate for that group and those who fail to recognize their own biases is very high.Yes, if there was a print version of the WP Constitution and Guidelines, I would want to acquire it. Learning by jumping around to different pages on my computer is not quite my thing.Matza Pizza (talk)16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of those people, they often aren't bullying so much as they can be frustrated. Some articles are non-stop battle grounds. Some level of compromise is reached then a new editor adds/removes something where a compromised was carefully reached and it frustrates the experienced editors. Wikipedia has a good page about assuming good faithwp:AGF. It's helpful on both sides. Honestly, the best way to learn is to work on non-controversial topics first. Still, if you are going to work on the hard stuff, it's best do most of your work on the talk pages vs editing first.Springee (talk)16:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I appreciate your giving everyone the benefit of the doubt; the world would be a better place if that were common practice. As to me, I have a pre-history encountering the occasional overbearing administrator. The situation you described is different than some of what I once experienced in a previous lifetime, before I set up my account. As is the case with Tim Pool, some folks helicopter in with no background and little-to-no understanding, and use their status to bully others. Even a small number of such types can ruin the experience for a large number of people.Matza Pizza (talk)17:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding your edits to the above article (and future edits anywhere), be sure to leave the reason for each change in theEdit summary. Thanks for your cooperation and best wishes.BeenAroundAWhile (talk)07:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile:Yeah, I've gotten a bit spare with my edit summaries, haven't I? In a previous lifetime, I used to write things like "improved grammar and readability" again and again, until I noticed that no one else seems to bother when it is that obvious. So I switched to explaining only when it wasn't obvious, aka when I am not fixing a typo or improving grammar and readibility.Matza Pizza (talk)12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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)01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Wellertalk08:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mOhnoitsjamie. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurateedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use yoursandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thanks.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced text and replacing it with an unsourced statement. If you continue doing that, you will be blocked from editing.OhNoitsJamie^Talk14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you picking on Abby Phillip? She is a successful journalist, and her page should properly reflect her career. I upgraded her article to show her accomplishments up front, and carefully hewed to Wikipedia's rules as I did so. I don't know why you are trying to downgrade her career.Matza Pizza (talk)14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have added unsourced and unnecessary information toElizabeth Holtzman. "Holtzman's parents immigrated from Russia. Her father was a trial lawyer, her mother the head of Hunter College's Russian department. Her twin brother, Robert, was a neurosurgeon." is left unsourced. "Holtzman is very reticent to discuss her personal life. She has a reputation of being intellectual and somewhat aloof." is an unnecessary statement. The rest of the "personal life" section is already mentioned within the article.Jon698 (talk)01:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source I provided: Every word of it is in there. Certainly the information I added is relevant, such as the results of the election in which she ran for the Senate. Why would you revert that? You have made baseless and biased edits and accusations against me, thus violating Wikipedia's rules. If you are unable to edit an article without lying and without bias, you need to leave the article alone and let others address it.

Matza Pizza (talk)02:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you added was copied from The Washington Post, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia'scopyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. —Diannaa (talk)00:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jon698 (talk)03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do I know you? I grew up in Massapequa, NY, and back in the 60's my mother "renamed" it Matzahpizza because of the large Jewish and Italian American populations there. Or is your choice of handle just a coincidence?AlexFeldman (talk)10:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My name is indeed a reference to Massapequa. I have no idea who nicknamed it thus, or whether or not your mom is the only one who has staked that claim, but yes, the idea is that it was populated by a mix of Jewsand Italians.

No, you don't me, sorry. But thank you for reaching out.Matza Pizza (talk)06:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It's a long way from LI to Boise.Matza Pizza (talk)06:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant to write that you don't KNOW me, but skipped that rather important word, "know". Whoops.Matza Pizza (talk)06:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matza Pizza

It's great that you are expanding articles and adding references ... but please please please can you fill the references using{{cite web}}? TheWP:Bare URLs which you add (e.g[1]) are obscure to readers and prone toWP:Linkrot.

You shouldn't be leaving problems like this for other editors to clean up after you. For help on how to fill a citation, seeWP:HOWTOCITE, and{{cite web}}.BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, but I'm dense at anything that involves knowledge of tech. Since seeing your note to me, I have only made a single edit in which I needed to add a source, as I find the whole process intimidating. I know that scaring me off of making future edits is certainly not your intention, but I'm afraid that has been the effect nonetheless. Presumably I'll get the hang of it at some point. I do wish there would be a 'printed' handbook of all of Wikipedia's rules, instead of online explanations, with links and crossreferences going simultaneously in 1000 directions. I'm lousy at trying to figure that stuff out. But anyway, I appreciate your reaching out. I can't imagine what it's like to make literally millions of edits.Matza Pizza (talk)18:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, this Jayity. You removed my edit citing Brock Purdy's nickname as Mr. Relevant. I think you're a little arrogant removing my edit when you clearly misread what I wrote. Purdy WAS nicknamed that, and you thought I said Mr. Irrelevant, which is the general nickname for last picks. Thus, I will be adding that edit back, and you will be reported if you remove it again. Have a great day.Jayity (talk)15:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about your ego or threats, but about following Wikipedia's rules. You added text with a source that said absolutely nothing about your edit, which is why it was reverted, and will be again if you repeat that action. You are not allowed to invent your own content without a source, nor does it help to add a source which in no way backs up your edit. Find a source which contains the information you want to add and then you won't have any problems.

Matza Pizza (talk)16:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourced and I provided a source that backed it up. It seems that my editing permissions have been removed entirely anyway. So much for assuming good faith. You'd do a lot better if you'd admit that you misread what I wrote. Your deletion message talks about how I misused "Mr. Irrelevant" which you'd know isn't true if you read it properly.Jayity (talk)17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I noticed onMrBeast you added abare reference (external link instead of a citation template), which are more suspectible to link rot. I've converted it to a full citation, which use one of the citation templates such asTemplate:Cite web, but in future please use these citation templates! Thanks!Fun Is Optional (talk page) (pleaseping on reply)08:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedScoop Jackson (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNike. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)06:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedKilling of Moriah Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRomance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whoopsMatza Pizza (talk)09:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text fromWen Ho Lee intoLouis Freeh. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —Diannaa (talk)16:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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)00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Wellertalk16:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse slipped, the last thing I wanted to do was to thank you for that edit. You've been here long enough to know not to do that sort of thing.Doug Wellertalk16:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mDoug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toVDARE have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please useyour sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at theTeahouse or theHelp desk. Thanks.Doug Wellertalk09:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please format your citations properly. Pasting a full length URL as a source is just making unnecessary work for other editors, as date, author and publication name is missing..Zenomonoz (talk)23:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "on a peg" mean?[2] Thanks. --Jameboy (talk)12:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard baseball language for a good, hard, accurate throw.

Matza Pizza (talk)11:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles aboutliving or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This messagedoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please seeWikipedia:Contentious topics.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)20:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onArthur Aidala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following adeletion discussion, atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Aidala. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)23:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onTony Dokoupil. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Based onthis summary, it appears you need to be more mindful about separating your editorial bias from actual editing. Please also consider the#BLP: contentious topic notice you received above.KyleJoan^talk15:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.KyleJoan^talk08:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring, as you did atTony Dokoupil. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk)13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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)00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your flattering message. (Sssh, I don't technically exist any more, but I still get e-mail.) Yes, everybody is ridiculous. I'm glad you love me. This afternoon I drank a couple of slow beers in a nice pub garden and I petted a sweet black-and-white cat. Probably better than wiki editing to be fair.2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3156:1DC4:AF14:D226 (talk)16:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Good for you. This encyclopedia is insane. Thankfully, I've learned the hard way not to let it get to me, most of the time, anyway. I don't know if you had a chance to see my addition to the Bracha L. Ettinger (I think that's her name) talk page, the first time there has been any movement there since you chimed in 3.5 years ago.

Anyway, all the best! Nice making your acquaintance.

Matza Pizza (talk)08:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleDan Turrentine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Turrentine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk)09:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do notremove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did atDinesh D'Souza, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please useyour sandbox for that. Thank you.DanielRigal (talk)11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly valid reason now provided, plus I added the topic on the Talk Page as well. Labeling a BLP as a conspiracist in Wikipedia's voice without any appropriate sourcing, or, in one case, with no sourcing at all, is an obvious violation of basic Wikipedia guidelines.

Matza Pizza (talk)15:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made recent edits in controversial topic areas which are likely themselves controversial. I reiterate you are participating in a contentious topic area(you received an official notification above). It is important to proceed carefully, civilly, and in a collaborative manner when making controversial edits.331dot (talk)14:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to self-revert your controversial edit to Stacy Abrams and obtain consensus for it on the talk page. You risk being sanctioned for edit warring(not by me as I'mWP:INVOLVED) if you persist with behavior like this.331dot (talk)15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning clearly both in the explanation for the edit as well as on the Talk Page. The language I removed is highly biased and/or unsourced, and absolutely does not belong in a Wikipedia article, certainly not in Wikipedia's voice, and absolutely not in a BLP.

Matza Pizza (talk)15:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more referring to your edit to Stacy Abrams- but instead of coming in like a wrecking ball you should approach it more collaboratively and obtain a consensus for changes to contentious topic related articles that are themselves likely to be controversial.331dot (talk)15:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the confusion. We can discuss it on the Talk Page, but reading the Washington Post's fact check article on the situation sends a very clear message, quoting as he does from a long list of reliable sources. Abrams has been promoting false claims about the 2018 election for a number of years.

Matza Pizza (talk)15:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRandy Fine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageKevin Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)22:23, 13 November 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)00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation