User talk:Riposte97
September 2025
[edit]
Hello, I'm Sirfurboy. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Grooming gangs scandal that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sirfurboyđ (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: I have restored my comment. It refers to your comment being disingenuous. Please leave it in place. If you have an issue, you're welcome to take this to a noticeboard. Riposte97 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Look, you don't actually believe a comment is disingenuous, as though it is a thing in itself, with agency, and not from the will and intent of the writer. It is not a comment that is disingenous; disingenuity is an act, and the actor is the one who is commenting, not the vibrations in the air when they speak or the marks on the page when they write. To say otherwise is a nonsense. If you say a comment is disingenuous, you say that the act of expressing the thought of the comment was a disingenuous act. No other understanding is possible.Now, why it is better removed: because the talk page of an article is not a place to have a go at other editors. Talk pages are there to discuss the issues, and to explore and persuade. In a collaborative project, it is necessary that such discussion be focused tightly on issues and not be ad hominem. If you attack the editors and not the arguments, you do not bring us any closer to agreement. If you are serious about collaborating and improving the contents of this encyclopaedia, you should self revert that attack, because it is clear that if any reply were made to it, we would not be seeking agreement any longer but seeking to score points off one another, as though this were some pointless internet forum. It is a not a forum. It is a place to work collegially. Or else not at all.And, as I said in my first edsum, one could make a case that something appears disingenuous - if there were a case and not just name calling, there would be something to clarify and answer. But here, instead of seeking any kind of further clarification, you just resorted to the name calling. For the avoidance of doubt, what might appear to be disingenuous is selective quotation. Note how my comment:
there is no case where it has been shown that members of the police were involved
became, in your handsno case
. I didn't say there was no case. I said there is no case where it has been shown, because in the UK the doctrine is that one is innocent until proven guilty. I think you know this, and I think if you had a little more respect for the analysis of those with whom you disagree, you would have been able to understand that point without the need for a lengthy correction.Finally, you dare me to take this to ANI. Please note that actually AE is the appropriate venue for this contentious topic, but I see my comment is still on your talk page where I say I am reluctant to go to any such place. I believe that if we treat one another with respect, and talk through differences, that we are much more likely to achieve good outcomes and make progress. If you agree, then perhaps you will self revert the personal attack; but don't worry, I am not looking to get you topic banned, and whether you do or not, I'll not be taking this to a drama board. The only thing that will be affected by your decision, whatever you decide, is my estimation of you. Sirfurboyđ (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- Look, you don't actually believe a comment is disingenuous, as though it is a thing in itself, with agency, and not from the will and intent of the writer. It is not a comment that is disingenous; disingenuity is an act, and the actor is the one who is commenting, not the vibrations in the air when they speak or the marks on the page when they write. To say otherwise is a nonsense. If you say a comment is disingenuous, you say that the act of expressing the thought of the comment was a disingenuous act. No other understanding is possible.Now, why it is better removed: because the talk page of an article is not a place to have a go at other editors. Talk pages are there to discuss the issues, and to explore and persuade. In a collaborative project, it is necessary that such discussion be focused tightly on issues and not be ad hominem. If you attack the editors and not the arguments, you do not bring us any closer to agreement. If you are serious about collaborating and improving the contents of this encyclopaedia, you should self revert that attack, because it is clear that if any reply were made to it, we would not be seeking agreement any longer but seeking to score points off one another, as though this were some pointless internet forum. It is a not a forum. It is a place to work collegially. Or else not at all.And, as I said in my first edsum, one could make a case that something appears disingenuous - if there were a case and not just name calling, there would be something to clarify and answer. But here, instead of seeking any kind of further clarification, you just resorted to the name calling. For the avoidance of doubt, what might appear to be disingenuous is selective quotation. Note how my comment:
The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List
[edit]There is a discussion that may interest you at
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)