User talk:JimmyPiersall

Nomination of Trump Derangement Syndrome for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Trump Derangement Syndrome until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi JimmyPiersall, and thank you for your contributions! I noticed your article Trump Derangement Syndrome and I think it’s a good candidate for Did You Know. DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here "DYK for Newbies." I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join other people who enjoy editing conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where you can can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel(talk) 06:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Trump derangement syndrome for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump derangement syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome 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. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of references to Cleveland in popular culture, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages
Are for discussing how to improve articles not as general soapboxes, not to air your grievances art Wikipedia unfairness. This [] was all of those. I suggest if you do not wish to edit political articles please do not post your musing about them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Steve! I would edit them, it's just a waste of time because it would get reverted. I'm not even allowed to edit the one political article I have edited (and created myself) because it's protected now! Pretty amazing right! JimmyPiersall (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as many pages get full protection due to vandalism. If people were not childish we could all edit all articles (and I suspect I could not edit said article either). Nor does any of that matter to the point I was making. If you have nothing constructive to say, do not say it, it just wastes everyone's time to read it and find it has nothing to say that is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm certain it is quite relevant to some people. It addresses pretty much what the entire content of the talk page is actually. It's just a more true and better explanation of what is actually going on. It's fine you don't like it. And I also think people that aren't into Orwellian control also would find it at least interesting that the creator of a page can't edit it. And as far as you labeling it as an issue of "fairness," it's not really about that so much. I was explaining to the person how Wikipedia works since I gave them the information they were wondering about. It's just a different take then, "He isn't relevant because..." or "That's not a legitimate source." I guess you could call it unfair, but it's more about the censorship and allusion of trustworthiness. Allusion of trustworthiness is what Wikipedia and their favorite sources are all about. Not actual trustworthiness, but so-called "reliability" and if it is "verifiable." I do congratulate you for jumping over to my talk space and getting me to waste time talking about what you likely already know. There is also an allusion of fairness. Wikipedia's homepage motto is false: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anyone can edit? I can't edit the page I created and the article I wrote! Most people read it and actually think it's true with no idea of how it actually works. They've even changed the WP:ELITE page considerably because it was laughable. Wikipedia is all about elitism. This is all true. You can't refute it, so you just try to say it doesn't belong, which is also how Wikipedia works in general. Kudos! JimmyPiersall (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but I can point you to WP:NOT and warn you that if you use article talk pages again in this way I will report you as disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye on me. Just please don't tell Mom. JimmyPiersall (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Mark Dice. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2021
Hi JimmyPiersall! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Talk:Meena Harris that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs (formerly Twassman) 17:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Afd
The following post is from an online tough guy that loves to question the motivations of others and deletes criticism from his page:

I highly, highly suggest you leave my motivations for nominating articles in your thoughts. Unless you're going to claim to me that you're an expert on myself, in which case, feel free to tell me everything you know, I'd love to hear how wrong it is. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JimmyPiersall
User:JimmyPiersall, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JimmyPiersall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:JimmyPiersall during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)