Wow, you're fast with cleaning your talk page... I'm still confused, though. The only merge discussion I see is 7 years old and actually concerns another article. Where is the merge discussion for the British Journal of American Legal Studies article? --Randykitty (talk)13:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I noticed you had edited on the 25th and thought you had seen the reply and decided not to respond.
There was no discussion. Given that the merge notice on both articles had been in place for over a month, I considered that to be enough time for the people who would object to that merger to speak up on the talk pages. After checking both talk pages (and closing a different discussion), rather than remove the tag, I boldly performed the merger because the pages seemed prime for merging to me personally and, again, because nobody complained on the talk pages about the tag for a month. That should hopefully clear things up?
The edit summary mentioned a discussion because that's the pre-filled text i use for mergers. I think this is the only time where I forgot to specify that there was no discussion, just a proposed merge notice.FaviFake (talk)14:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging without any discussion would normally be permissible perbold. However, doing so a month after an AfD that unanimously !voted "keep" is not bold but disruptive. --Randykitty (talk)14:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know.As I explained, I would not have merged the pages had I seen the AfD discussion, which is why I've also recommended thatAfD closing editors [...] double-check any tags left on the page to prevent [misunderstandings] like this from happening in the future. Of course I didn'twillfully defy the outcome of an AfD, I was simply unaware of it.FaviFake (talk)14:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

CapnZapp This is the third discussion you've opened about this matter;the previous discussion was still active as of yesterday and received over sixty comments. According to therelevant talk page guideline, one should[a]void starting the same discussion on multiple pages, which fragments discussion.

I had zero intention to start a new discussion. I alerted a wider audience to the existing discussion(s). And more specifically, to the way you're using procedure as a tool to deflect and dilute the obvious argument: you simply don't leave programming code (CSS fragments) for editors to stumble upon, full stop.

You leaving boilerplatey language (regarding my alleged violation of WP:MULTI) is just another attempt by you to do just this.

By the way, if MULTI really meant what you think it does, editors would not be allowed to alert a wider audience to existing discussions through the Village Pump.CapnZapp (talk)23:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]