User talk:Matza Pizza

Hello Matza Pizza! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting 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 to sign 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 to always fill in the edit 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

Hi Matza Pizza! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse 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 by any 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:I did 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 references wp:BOLD. If you use the search bar and type "BOLD" you will get Emphasis (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 faith wp: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 the Edit 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 the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not 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 called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-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 the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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 Weller talk 08:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. 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 accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 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 ^Talk 14:42, 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 to Elizabeth 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's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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}}? The WP:Bare URLs which you add (e.g [1]) are obscure to readers and prone to WP: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, see WP: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 the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 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 on MrBeast you added a bare 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 as Template:Cite web, but in future please use these citation templates! Thanks! Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping 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 edited Scoop Jackson (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. 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) 06:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Killing of Moriah Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance.

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

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

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Wen Ho Lee into Louis 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 an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking 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 at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious 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 edit carefully and constructively, 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 topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 16:06, 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 Weller talk 16:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to VDARE have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 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]