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 Wikipedia: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. - Mr X 🖋 12:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JimmyPiersall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Are for discussing how to improve articles not as general soapboxes, not to air your grievances art Wikipedia unfairness. This [[1]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Important Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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 13:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hi JimmyPiersall! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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 | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 17:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Hello, JimmyPiersall. I am replying here rather than at the talk page to prevent that discussion from going off-topic. To begin, a discussion that is archive prematurely can be restored by an editor. To quote WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE: If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. My understanding is that you are referring to the first discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16. If you want to restore that and make a comment within the discussion, then you should be able to do so. Do note that if you do not make a new comment when restoring the discussion, then the discussion might end up re-archived as the current auto-archiving period is three days. (It was at one day when that discussion was archived.) Regarding the talk page settings, the talk page was restricted back in October. To keep this somewhat reasonable, I will be brief: A discussion elsewhere concluded that articles with a focus on post-1932 politics regarding the US were a contentious topic. While that has been revised to post-1992, the contentious topic designation stands. As part of contentious topic enforcement, the talk page was restricted due to the election, though it will expire before the year is over. (Or more accurately, just after the Electoral College votes.) That is also why there is a banner at the top of the talk page that notes the active arbitration remedies that apply to the article. In any case, hope this clears some things up. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger? Really?

Are we really gonna listen to a guy whose entire view point on how neutrality should be handled is literally the Balance fallacy? Really? ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThrowawayEpic1000, better than basically regurgitating content from mainstream media sources (Seriously, how is MSNBC considered reliable?) People already don't trust widespread media outlets/publications from which WP verifies information as it is. Also, take a look at the link Jimmy left you. Might help. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 14:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: I mean, if you feel as if MSNBC being considered reliable is a mistake, you can bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; Maybe being up MSNBC's MBFC Rating to get the conversation started? ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThrowawayEpic1000, first off, apologies for the less-than-friendly tone I used above. I used MSNBC as an example just to underscore my issues with this encyclopedia as a whole (it's still laughable to me,) but I shouldn't have addressed you in that manner. I'll follow your guidance on this, as I think it'll be a step in the right direction. Again, apologies and thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what I said is a Tu Quoque fallacy, though? Me pointing out that his suggestion for how to keep things neutral is to present all viewpoints equally, even if one of them is straight up wrong doesn't serve to contradict his stated motive to criticize Wikipedia for not being neutral, but instead criticize that the way he thinks Wikipedia should go about it is severely flawed. Perhaps you meant the Genetic fallacy? ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar
		Hope you don't mind the random barnstar, but your user page is SPOT. ON. It's gotten harder to ignore and it's good to see others expressing those legitimate concerns. Doubt any of this will change, but 🤷‍♂️ Either way, thank you for bringing some more attention to this. It's wild. I'm sure I'll get slighted again, but I don't care anymore. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]