User talk:ScrubbedFalcon

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)

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)

Just following up, are you planning to list the discussion for closure soon? I know it's on the shorter side of the 2-3 week window you mentioned, but given that the new participants since the relisting have supported the original consensus, I don't see much of a reason to draw things out. (If it could be closed by this weekend, I'd probably have time to perform the merge so it doesn't linger after the closure.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like Iseult closed it before I could post it. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, ScrubbedFalcon, I'm troubled by your second, revised closure of the RfC on Ferrero SpA. Catfurball changed WK Kellogg after the RfC closed. This warrants a NEW discussion with involved editors, not a change in the CLOSED RFC. I can't even imagine the chaos if we started going back and reassessing, then reverting closed RfC discussions using parameters that DIDN'T exist during the course of the actual discussion.

I believe the original RfC closure needs to stand, and involved editors need to be pinged in the second discussion catfurball began below the RfC. But we cannot set a precedence of changing the result of an RfC after a side lobbying conversation happens off-subject-talk-page with parameters that didn't exist during the original discussion.

Next steps, in my mind, would be to revert the closure back to the original and ping involved editors in catfurball's discussion on the Ferrero talk page. If we can't agree on that, I'll probably want to take this to a review board. I'm interested in your take. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 14:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I very much understand your concern. I was also frustrated that Catfurball chose to wait to improve the improve the article until after the discussion was closed instead of addressing things during the conversation to allow other editors to react to those changes (though I don't think I fully expressed that on their talk page when discussing the issue). I agree that a new discussion would be warranted, which is why I changed the close to a no-consensus close which, importantly, is not prejudicial to a new merge discussion being started. Its just that the original discussion is stale, so reinstating the original close seems wrong as well. By all means, start a new merge discussion, you can find instructions at WP:MERGEPROP ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I strongly disagree with the choice to change the outcome of the RfC at all. Catfurball had already reverted my merging edits and reached out to me personally to continue discussion, which I was willing to do. It was a frustrating experience to see the RfC results had changed on top of that. But I can get behind you that reverting it back to a merge consensus at this point wouldn't solve the problem at-hand. Thanks for your response. On to a new discussion, then. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 13:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This came up when I did some digging while responding to this semi-protected edit request. Based on the content I suspect that the request falls under PIA EC edit restrictions in the "broadly construed" sense. The TA also mentioned that there is similar content on the article for Pope Francis, which I also suspect would fall under the restrictions. I understand that EC protection doesn't necessarily have to be applied to all tangentially connected pages but I thought it would make sense to have the {{Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_editnotice}} with the section parameter on both articles and the requisite invisible comments noting which parts fall under PIA. However, based on the explanation at WP:Editnotices its not clear to me if the restriction that "only administrators, page movers, and template editors can create or edit editnotices in any other namespace" applies only to the creation of new editnotices or also to the application of existing editnotice templates to articles by adding them for example to Template:Editnotices/Page/Pope_Francis (which it seems I do have edit access to, but it's not clear to me so I'd rather ask). I hope the question is clear, if not let me know! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Zero0000, sorry for the ping but I noticed that you're an admin with experience in the PIA area do you think you could help me with this? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The statement "only administrators, page movers, and template editors can create or edit editnotices in any other namespace" refers to who has the technical ability to add an editnotice to an article or change the text in an article editnotice. If you are able to edit the text of an existing article editnotice (are you sure?) it means that the description has not kept up with changes to the permission structure. It wouldn't be the first time. Meanwhile, I changed the editnotice and added a template to the talk page (without which the restrictions are unenforceable). Feel free to add hidden comments yourself. If things get bad due to unqualified editors causing disruption, ask at WP:RPP for extended-confirmed protection. I can't do that myself, nor can I enforce the restriction, since I'm "involved" in the area. Zero^talk 01:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @ScrubbedFalcon, as Zero0000 mentioned you should not be able to make changes to the editnotice template without the pagemover, template editor, or sysop flags. This should be a technical restriction from MediaWiki since it works by using the title blacklist. You'll see an "Edit source" button (as I've just tested with StaractionTest) but you won't be able to actually make changes to the page. In other words, per my understanding, you will not be running into anything that will "get you in trouble", if that's something you're worried about.

If you notice pages in which the requisite editnotice has not been applied, but should be (such as if the page is preemptively extended-confirmed protected under WP:CT/PIA, of which there may be many), feel free to create an edit request on the Template talk:Editnotices/Page/[article name] page, like this, and someone will be able to add it for you in due time. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Hello, how do I make new article biography? --TatjanaYou777 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I would recommend that you use the Articles for Creation process, you can also click here to open the article draft creation form that will walk you through a few things. Let me know if you have any questions about our notability requirements or reliable sources! ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

How to go paperless? --RLConley (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia so we're already paperless (with the exception of offline sources). Can you be more specific what you want help with? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was just looking around to see if a title had been announced anywhere for the new Banksy statue yet, and noticed that you'd named the article de:Blinded by the Flag on dewiki, with that article now saying that this ist der Titel.

Is there a good published source for this being the name of it? I can see that the phrase does appear in some news sources (with others using Blind Patriotism), but always as a headline or description rather than the explicit title of the artwork. Belbury (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hate to disappoint, I didn't do that. I originally created a draft at Draft:Banksy statue and submitted via AfC, a day later another editor created Blind Patriotism directly in mainspace, so I withdrew the AfC and merged my content to that article. It looks like someone grabbed my draft version and translated it before the merge (this diff:). I haven't done any editing on the German version of the article. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, then, I misunderstood what the page history was showing me. I hadn't seen that kind of translation user link before. Belbury (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wish I had a source ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 20:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)