User talk:Riposte97

Hi Ripost97; I've tried to add an edit on the Talk page at Trump for informing other editors but someone is reverting; could you look at this? ErnestKrause (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

My word. I seem to have returned from a couple of days away to quite a mess. I'll go over the page today. Riposte97 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Riposte97; I'm not sure that you will be around for the holidays. I've started a new discussion about trimming and condensing the Trump article further on the Talk page there if you have time to take a look. ErnestKrause (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi EK, Merry Christmas! I am about to disappear for a few weeks, but I'll take a look beforehand. Riposte97 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Good holiday wishes, of course. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

In case you are back from the holidays, then it seems that Bill Williams is still away for several days and it would be nice if someone could complete the trims and condense edits to the Trump Political positions and rhetoric subheadings currently being supported. Any ideas for getting someone who could bring each of the subheadings down to about one paragraph each, since there appears to be consensus to do this at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, but I'll be editing on mobile for a week yet. Riposte97 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This morning, Jan 7, some one is trying to revert the Bill Williams sequence of trim and condense edits to the "Political positions and rhetoric" section from when he did them on Dec 26 here: . Possibly you could look at this when you return from New Year's holidays. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, locked and loaded now. Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Another editor is now reverting further here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've seen your edits today on the Trump Talk page and I could support you though it might actually be useful to consider just running the full RfC for Option1-Option2-Option3 as I had already listed on the Talk page there. If you could clean up the format and list it as a RfC then I could support you fully on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sure that sounds good Riposte97 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

From my comment above, 'If you could clean up the format and list it as a RfC then I could support you fully on this.' If you could do this anytime today or tomorrow then just ping me and I'll add my support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause let's hope I did that correctly, and that the process runs smoothly. Riposte97 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The initial RfC responses look quite bitter. My thought is that it might be more useful if it included all of the three options currently listed on the prior Talk page section at Trump Talk. Maybe you could bring in the Option1-Option2-Option3 version of this RfC which might make it more productive. I'll try to support you in this but wanted to ask you about it first. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I’m not sure that would help. If the RfC goes against us, imo the best thing to do is gradually improve the section in the usual course. Riposte97 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your RfC has been delisted by sysops before I could get to it; possibly you could think of a way to challenge the other RfC just listed by Space4Time which seems to conflict with your previous very good comment in the other Talk page discussions taking place over there. You may be allowed to replace it with an RfC for this matter if you file it as a full deletion of that section as being a duplicate of the articles for Trumpism and others. Separately, I'm noticing an ANI held 3-4 months ago about Mandurs and your defense of him as a long-time editor; you do realize that he and Space4Time appear to be the ones listing most of the countervailing comments to your own viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

To point 1 - That might be up to the closer, unless you have an appetite to challenge it as a bad RfC.

To point 2 - I know, but I believe Mandruss acts in good faith. Riposte97 (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Riposte97; I've just noticed your comment about Greenland on the Trump Talk page; there is a follow-up discussion about the 'page split' close also taking place and it would be nice to hear your views. Any chance you could take a look? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I'd been intending to get there. Riposte97 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Riposte97; Space4Time appears to be reverting again on the main Trump page; could you take a look at it? 16:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)ErnestKrause (talk)

So I see. To be honest, I feel like this will end up backfiring on him. Let's see if he's as good as his word in opening a discussion today. Riposte97 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the trim down discussion has 2-3 days left for comments; its sort of speak now or hold your peace for a long time otherwise. Any thoughts to add to the Talk page there? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been loosely following that discussion, and unfortunately I just don't see the support at this stage. Riposte97 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sort of agreeing with you about this; since I've opened 3-4 subthreads in that section, then I'll ask if it might be worth backing up at least one of them. For example, making the trims to "Political Practice and Rhetoric: Racial and gender views" might be a good place to try it. I've already done the rewrite for it which I posted there and maybe you can agree or not with adding a helpful word there. Otherwise, it looks like the issue for the entire section would go to pasture for at least several months. I'll try to go along with which ever choice you make on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a good comment you made as presented and you have the attention of the other editors as well; it looks like if you can place your own version of the 2-3 sentence version of the Preface subsection into the discussion then I'll try to fully support your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think there's a deficit of support. I agree with you that the section is too long and poorly constructed. We might be better served, however, by arguing for a more sweeping perspective. I think that view may become clearer in the coming months as his administration continues and important elections are held in Europe. I will develop my thoughts on this further, but currently the section does little more than draw on a series of example actions - these are probably better placed by being folded into the chronological narrative of the rest of the article. Instead, an 'Impact' or 'Consequences' section could give more context to readers that he has been an incredible consequential figure in domestic and global politics, spearheading a realignment across the world. Such a section could also consider the effects of his views and rhetoric domestically. The current section is stillborn, frozen in 2020, and reading like some student diatribe. Riposte97 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that the section might be better formulated on the model of other presidents, none of which seem to conclude their articles with a 'Rhetoric' section; only Trump seems to do this. Your comment just above here from 21 Feb is quite insightful and it might benefit the current Talk page discussion to see it there for everyone's benefit. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Your revert from 17 Feb may need a follow-up edit? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the revision history, but don't see anything obvious? Would you mind linking? Riposte97 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the link to your revert from 17 Feb which looks like it needs a follow-up edit here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

With appreciation for your notification to me about the Middle East air strike; I've noticed that you were away for several days before that. As you likely have noticed, then the discussion about bulking down is winding down and possibly you have some closing comment you could add there; otherwise things are likely to go quiet on this issue for at least several weeks or months. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Good morning, Ernest, thanks for the reminder. I don't think I have anything to add at this stage. Probably best left for a little while and returned to soon. Riposte97 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Riposte97. Thank you. Snokalok (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

AE lurker here. Just wanted to note that the Mughal Empire was around 2x the size of the Roman by peak population. By area, however, the Roman empire at its maximum was indeed a bit bigger, so perhaps that's what you meant. No comment on the rest. Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ha touché! I'm no historian, but I do enjoy Dalrymple's books on the period. Riposte97 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You have good taste then. Dalrymple is such a great writer. Generalrelative (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, it's probably too late but you should probably stop posting to AE. The whole purpose of the exercise is to get you topic banned. They do not care about any other editors behavior: "The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported." So they can't sanction anyone else's behavior in that request. And they don't want to. Of course they know about the behavior of these other editors, but they don't want to sanction them—you're the target. If they wanted to any one admin could just do it on your own based on what's happening on that talk page.

They know very well you're going to get attacked. Hell, there's an editor taunting you on the article talk page and his talk page but they do not care. If you defend yourself it is in there minds only evidence against you. Answer if they ping you with a question but anything else you say is held against you as showing battleground behavior on your part. fiveby(zero) 00:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Aye, good advice, and I thank you for it. I’m glad that, even if I am tbanned, you and other reasonable editors will remain in that topic area. I'll do as you advise at AE in the hope that it's enough. Riposte97 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Rape gangs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12 § Rape gangs until a consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Rape gangs scandal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 12 § Rape gangs scandal until a consensus is reached. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Riposte97 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Military Frontier on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 00:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:History of Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This revert is a 1RR violation. Please self-revert. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the notif. However, as I've said on the talk page, I think this falls within an exception. This meta-discussion, as a side note, is soaking up for more time than just discussing the change like civilised editors would have. Riposte97 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you didn't revert vandalism or a clear-cut BLP violation, then I don't see how your 1RR falls within any exception. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you violated 1RR or not, if your change is reverted, don't re-revert. That leads to edit warring. Just jump straight to discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Riposte, you know I am also questioning that addition, but you are digging yourself deeper here with every word you type. You did not claim exemption in your edit summary (which you did actually leave, so completely puzzled why if you were claiming 3RRNO you didn't bother to add that) and you did not go directly to talk to open a section explaining you were claiming exemption, but only made that claim after you'd been challenged. I'm sorry but that is a very bad look. And just one editor's opinion, but FWIW I see zero BLP vio in this addition. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I also doubt the usefulness of that addition, but edit warring it out is not the way to go. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Valereee, I have to admit, given our interactions at AE, I find it difficult to take that comment as entirely neutral. Nevertheless, you and the Super Piano Man have convinced me that my BLP concerns were too strong. I'll self-revert now. Riposte97 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please take this as sincere...what interactions have we had at AE? I usually just work there, but w/re Khelif x GENSEX I'm involved. I made one comment in your current case, and it was primarily about ECR'ing the article talk, not providing evidence w/re you. I looked at our previous interactions there, and I'm not easily finding anything. Again, please take this as sincere, totally open to the idea I might simply not be remembering something, I've worked many cases there. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have struck that snippy comment, and I apologise. It was very late here when I wrote that. I can see you are sincere. Riposte97 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, Riposte. I didn't even see it as snippy! I was just like, "Do I have some negative history with this editor that I'm not remembering?" lol. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Two Legs Better: Please do not use AI to write comments or essays. I can tell for multiple reasons:

• Excessive bolding
• Excessive use of em-dashes
• Though "Phenotypical, Biological, and Molecular Heterogeneity of 5α-Reductase Deficiency" does exist, the DOI provided is wrong and the PubMed link leads to an article titled "Nonoxidative free fatty acid disposal is greater in young women than men".

Please also read WP:SOAPBOX. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Riposte. This section could be putting you in a difficult position. If you would like me to remove it, I will, and will consider any reply here as WP:BANEX. If you just want to let it archive normally, that's fine too. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi , I created account, maybe you can help how to open RfC you suggested on Tesla page. I still think that it would be better to interest some more editors before going there. I posted on Wiki project Croatia, so maybe it would be better to wait and see if someone is interested. Ip95DiscussionAccount (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

To put thinks simple. I have identified problems. They have problems saying Tesla's bithplace has any relation to Kingdom of Croatia. Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier. This is without doubt and no discussion is needed. We even have Tesla's primary sources stating the official name "Croatian Military Frontier", not only secondary sources. But they don't want to have this "Croatian" and just use "Military Frontier". They don't even want to admit it was "Croatian Military Frontier" in the talk page.

And second problem is that they deny any realtion of Croatian Military Froniter to Kingdom of Croatia.

I have collected sources from the article and talk page which speak of this relation explicitly.

"Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13

"the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12

"Manifest...was signed by the Emperor...in 1850. For Croatian-Slavonian Military Border it was concluded...Croatian-Slavonian Military area will remain, as it was up to now, in union with it's mother land and will constitute with it one territorial area, but with separated provincial administration, separated border administration and separated represenation" M Valentić · 1978, page 48.

From 1850 the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia formally constituted a single land, but with separate administration and representation, Horvat, secondary historical source, already included in Military Frontier article

Ip95DiscussionAccount (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, well the first thing to do is read up on how Wikipedia decides what should be in an article. I recommend starting with WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:DUE. Once you've done that, consider whether the change you want to make lines up with our policies.

Next, read WP:RFC on how to start a Request for Comment. This should only be done on the relevant Nikola Tesla subpage. Be extremely careful about notifying other pages or editors, as this should not be done in a way that gives the impression you are attempting to influence the result (see: WP:CANVASS).

I can see the most recent RfC on this topic was poorly done. I would recommend spending some time reading over that discussion to review where it went wrong. Concentrate in particular on formulating a neutral RfC question.

Good luck. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 23:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jean Sibelius on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per a consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~~~~