Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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: [1]. Possibly you could look at this when you return from New Year's holidays. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another editor is now reverting further here: [2]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This is the link to your revert from 17 Feb which looks like it needs a follow-up edit here: [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for updating the Imane Khelif article with the most up-to-date information. Do you think it may be useful to add the controversy over sex verification into the opening paragraph? As this what Khelif is best known for now. ~2026-82542-2 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but one step at a time! Riposte97 (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Riposte97. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV

You have been warned as the result of this discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

This warning 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 warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning 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 warning, it remains current 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have a KitKat. Halbared (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you've been active in discussions on political topics and related talk pages recently. There's an ongoing thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about the reliability of partisan voter guide websites that might interest you, feel free to check it out if you have time. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Partisan_Voter_Guide_Websites Oiloiloil3 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Oiloiloil3, thanks for reaching out. I'm not sure it would be appropriate of me to weigh into that discussion owing to WP:CANVASS. I'm sure we'll cross paths in future! Riposte97 (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]