User talk:ScrubbedFalcon

Thanks for merging Model minority! FaviFake (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! That article is way to long, but I don't have the capacity to go through all of it now. I hope the lead is ok at least. Are you in the merge project? I don't think I saw you on the list ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it's great! I haven't signed my name into the Wikiproject but I very much enjoy merging articles :) FaviFake (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the discussion at village pump getting a bit out of hand? I don't know how to evaluate it from other conversations on wiki ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems it was moved! FaviFake (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed! I can't seem to get convenient discussions to work on the RfC page, do you know how to get that to work? I found it through an edit tag on a comment you left somewhere and was very happy because it made the conversation so much easier to parse. Thought you might be able to help. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes I love CD! Idk why it doesn't work there, but maybe @Aaron Liu can help? I've discovered CD through a userbox on his talk page :) FaviFake (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it works for me, so I can't see what problem you're having... The page in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merging merge discussions with AfD, innit? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah its that page. I think I figured it out. Its some problem with the configuration file, I don't know if someone is maintaining one for en.wiki and I don't have time to make one rn but @Aaron Liu maybe you have one that you can share? @FaviFake if you're having the same issue you can force CD to run from a link in the footer of the page and then refresh from the little icon that pops up on the left. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There is one configuration per wiki, thus we're using the same one. What do you think is the problem with the configuration file? Could you tell me what platform and OS you're using by any chance? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the file at: [] and on lines 138-142 there's no whitelist for the Wikipedia namespace and from what I gather from the documentation on commons the script uses the presence of certain elements and the config values to determine whether to run or not. My best guess is that it needs to be whitelisted for "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment". I'm running on a mac and I've tried firefox and chrome ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please finish cleaning up Algebraic normal form after you merged content into it on 10 February 2026.

As of 12 February 2026, there are currently 3 See also sections, 3 References sections, and 3 Further reading sections, when there should only be one each of those sections. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I cleaned up the duplicate sections you mentioned a while ago and just completed the rest of the merge! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I have decided to make an account to justify why I removed that section. The removal I made was completely justified. First of all, not only was the offending content within the wrong section of the article (Archaeology,) the source cited for the statement is completely erroneous and from a magazine, not citing any actual concrete source. This is the absolute definition of a biased source. Within the source a known terrorist is hailed a a martyr, a member of an organization (H*mas), who actively kills their own people (acting as a tyrannical force, there are videos proving this). These performative actions hold the Palestinian people backward, and do not help to further their rightful aspiration for a free state of their own. Wikipedia is not a place to push a political agenda, or praise terrorists. Information on Wikipedia should be derived from trusted unbiased sources. Requesting an EC in this situation is a cowardly, backward thing to do. My removal of this section was completely justified.

Have a lovely evening,

And may peace be upon you. Tai1455 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Also just to let you know I have no hard feelings, Just read your Model Minority article you have been working on merging. great work :) Tai1455 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my work :) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of WP:Civility, calling me a coward for asking admins to enforce WP:PIA is a personal attack and completely inappropriate, see WP:NOPA. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but you should be aware of how things come across to strangers on a text only platform.

Between you reverting my revert of your edit and when I saw all of this, the application of WP:PIA edit restrictions to this article was confirmed and EC protection was applied to the page. I'm going to revert your revert on the grounds that you shouldn't be editing in this area without an EC account and that you didn't follow WP:BRD. If you want you can make en EC edit request on the talk page of the article. My talk page is not the place to discuss the merits of one source or another. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you please review these errors on reference no. 123, 126, 128, 130. Senapatiji (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I took a look, the issue was with named references and the way you were copying the content from the old article (if you copy the visual text instead of the wikicode it sometimes doesn't get everything). I merged all of the content from the source article to the destination article and left section headers where the merged content begins and ends. Could you finish the content merge? You can remove the construction template and the section markers obviously when you have the article in good shape.

There's also a duplicate "works cited" section right now which is also tagged "merged" if you could take a look if that can be deleted or if the sources should be moved into the existing section. The references section itself is all good now.

Let me now if you need any other help! I'll see if I can include a note on this potential error on the wp:merge page. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I'll start removing duplicate info from merged content after reading the full article. Senapatiji (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The proposal was criticised for being too broad and without any detail put through. I don't see consensus to carry out the merges (besides the South Island one) based on that discussion. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There were quite a few separate criticisms of different parts of the proposal, which is why I didn't find consensus for all of them to merge. There was agreement though from multiple editors on a modified proposal. Can you specify which part of the consensus I found you disagree with? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 'towns' and 'urban areas' should have been merged, I mentioned these are not the same, with the list of towns containing historical towns and urban areas containing non-towns as well as conurbinations that may constitute more than one town. MildyLucid supported renaming the list of towns to be an article on towns itself. It was a bit of a cluster of a proposal that should have focused on specific articles instead of one large merge. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I did notice your input of course and take it into account when considering all of the proposals and counter-proposals. Would your reaction to the close have been different if I had recommended renaming the merged article "List of urban areas in New Zealand" instead of "List of cities and towns in New Zealand"? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not really because the underlying issue of how the article will look was never addressed, leading to either a second discussion being required (in which case it may as well be a new merge request) or the merge being carried out ad hoc by a user. What would this 'List of cities and towns in New Zealand' look like, how are we defining the criteria? Do historical towns get included? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I hear and respect your concerns, I'm also partial to maintaining the initial close because it reflects my understanding of the conversation as an uninvolved editor and the longer we continue this discussion on the merits the less uninvolved in the discussion I become. What if we merged the articles in draft space first before implementing the changes in mainspace? I've done that sort of thing with merges before and I'd be happy to help over the next few days. I could put a comment with a link to the draft under the conversation and ask people to contribute there. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A draft may lead to a better outcome, I can't really say without seeing what the draft is ultimately. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

While I opposed the merger, I accept the outcome of the discussion to merge the page due to the game currently not being considered notable enough for a page.

What exactly would be needed for the page to potentially be unmerged via reverting it back to how it was before the redirect was added in the future (like would the NFL, the Bills, or the Chiefs have to rank it on a list, would there need to be a Wide Right III where Wide Right II is extensively looked back on, etc.)? Astronaut74539 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't tell you definitively how or when the notability criteria would be met, there were a number of links to policy in the discussion that you could take a look at. What I would advise you to do for now is copy the version of the article you want into either draft space or your user sandbox and continue working on it there, add new sources that you find etc. When you think it meets the notability criteria you can submit it though the WP:AfC process and get input from other editors. I'd be happy to help you draftify the article, let me know if you want a hand! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Astronaut74539 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ScrubbedFalcon. I've opened a ergereview for the 2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash merge you closed. I've outlined why I believe the closure didn't properly weigh the arguments. You can find the review here: Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge review. Best, 15:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Shiningr3ds (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

ScrubbedFalcon, you previously said you'd be happy to answer questions about the close. I asked several specific ones. You haven't responded. If you're not going to, that's fine — but at least acknowledge that you're choosing not to engage. Otherwise, it looks like you're avoiding the very questions you offered to answer. Shiningr3ds (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my response to the formal merge review request at AN, I would be happy to answer questions that reviewing administrators might have for me as the closing editor. However, I don't think it would be helpful for the discussion for me to respond to your specific points, the discussion of them has already been very extensive. I might have been better able to respond to questions and concerns before you initiated a formal close review, but at this point I think its better to let the process play out. I also mentioned in my response that I didn't read anything in your questions/arguments that I hadn't already read and weighed when writing the close. Please assume good faith. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You're now refusing to answer my questions because it's "not helpful". What would be helpful — ignoring the problem until it goes away? If you actually read the discussion and weighed the arguments, answering these basic questions shouldn't be difficult. If you can't answer them, just say so. Shiningr3ds (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to engage with you directly on this because I'm concerned that it only leads to escalation and circular back and forth. See WP:COAL. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Shiningr3ds, your most recent reply is unacceptable and a direct violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. You have attempted to turn this review into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. @ScrubbedFalcon has explicitly stated they now don't want to engage with you due to how you have conducted yourself. Please take a step back and let this review close without any further disruption. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@11WB, you should read WP:HARASS. Stop following me around and commenting on everything I do. Shiningr3ds (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the close, but I'd ask that you reconsider and either open it back up or move the close to no consensus. The uniqueness of the 50-50 achievement, and how much it surpassed the previous records, gives credence to keeping its own article, and the discussion seems to reflect that. 30-30 and 40-40 exists because they were achieved and are noteworthy. 50-50 becomes the most noteworthy of all. Merging it to 40-40 makes little sense, and diminishes the achievement while at the same time hiding it in "a couple of sentences" at the lesser-achievement article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for approaching me directly with your concerns about the close. I don't think I can re-close it to no-consensus at this time because the consensus of most editors citing policy is in favor of the merge (WP:NOTUNANIMOUS). What I read in the discussion and in your comment here is that the objections are around the notability which doesn't seem to really be contested here, but the notability itself isn't a reason to keep the page separate which was also mentioned by participants in the discussion (see for example WP:PAGEDECIDE, specifically at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). and WP:MERGEREASON). I would be willing to reopen the discussion if you think that its realistic that further discussion would result in a stronger or different consensus, but please keep in mind that the discussion has been open for a few months and had participation from nine editors, I closed it after it was posted at WP:RFCL. Let me know what you think? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and with your detailed explanation you probably could, if in a debating mood, put together the opposite opinion, or the no consensus logic. If this stays, then what would the broader topic be? 30-30, 40-40? Those were the options given, and if merged would not only be lesser topics but hiding the unique and important 50-50 achievement, which makes little sense to me (so WP:COMMONSENSE rears its head in this as well). A reopening would delay the merge to 40-40, which feels strange writing as the agreed-upon merge target, and give other editors who may see the discussion at the baseball project talk page a change to chime in (the thing with older merge requests is that they become dated and new and even already commenting editors forget or are not aware of their existence). If you can do so, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The APPNOTE on the baseball project talk is from 3 weeks ago and the MP is from January, there has been plenty of time. If ScrubbedFalcon won't budge, and I see no good reason they should, you can proceed to AN if you like, at least there'll be people there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Well that's moot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it might be good to let some more people chime in if Randy thinks that its realistic. If there's no more participation then I think it would be appropriate for me to reinstate the initial close in a couple weeks instead of waiting for a new closer, I'll take a look then. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)