User talk:MelanieN/Archive 100

Deleted article
You recently deleted Ber as a G12. Wasn't there a redirect there previously that should be restored. I'd just recreate the redirect myself but I don't remember the target. MB 01:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, MB, and thanks for your note. You are entirely correct and I have recreated the redirect. BTW the target turns out to be Ziziphus mauritiana. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gimli (Middle-earth)
Don't know if you got my ping there, but I was reviewing it at the same time you were, and we edit conflicted - more importantly, we disagreed. Can you take a look, and we'll iron out our differences? --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied at the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

CSD query
Hi Melanie, just a quick query on your CSD opinion regarding Mark Duthie. I did consider this to some extent, and obviously not being able to view deleted articles, focused more on the CSD criteria relating to "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". On the surface, the article may well no doubt look more "substantial", but the references are merely nothing more than database entries with some WP:OR to create prose. I also have reservations about the creator being a sock (report is filed) and thus it may be that it gets CSDed via G5 anyway depending how that goes, though the AfD discussion here wasn't long ago and, when I reviewed that, I didn't see any significant improvement or addressing of the issues in this variant of the article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bungle (love your username!), and thanks for the note. It may be that the current version also fails notability, but it would require a separate AfD. The version that was deleted in May was hopeless. It consisted, in full, of a one-sentence lead — "Mark Duthie (born 19 August 1972) is a former Scottish professional footballer who played as a midfielder for Meadowbank Thistle, Livingston, Ayr United, Stranraer, Ross County and Berwick Rangers." - and a one-sentence Career section — "Duthie played for Meadowbank Thistle and then Livingston after the team relocated in 1995." - and that's all. And an infobox, containing one reference to one fact. No references at all in the text. Bottom line, the current version is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" — it is way better — so it does not qualify for G4. If he still doesn't pass muster (I'm no judge of that) it could be AfD'ed a second time. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the response and appreciate you disclosing the former variant for comparison. Despite that, I did consider based on the former afd and sources offered, there is no meaningful expansion when you actually analyse beyond the superficial appearance. The "expansion" does seem to be a WP:SYNTH of the "sources" added, themselves almost entirely just brief match outcomes/databases. Taking the synth expansion out, it is much closer to the deleted version. Is it enough to discount the recent afd? I respect your view and explanation, though i'm not fully onboard. I'll see where the SPI goes first, unless you reconsider. Lastly, I think you're possibly the first to comment on my alias, despite my tenture (in fairness, it is a British thing)! Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also observe that Onel5969 has just tagged the article for the exact same reason as myself too (Onel5969, you may observe this discussion above as it's already been declined by Melanie, which you may not have noticed, or maybe you think it should be CSDed regardless?). Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, I did miss the prior CSD and decline. Will remove the tag now.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Bungle and Onel5969, let me know if the author turns out to be a sock (looking at their contributions I doubt it), in which case it could be G5'ed, or if anyone tags this as G4 for a third time (it certainly looks like it deserves it, for those who can't see the original). If that happens, and possibly even if it doesn't, I will AfD(2) this article myself. We need to move past "is it a recreation, or isn't it?" to the real question, "does this article belong here, or not?" -- MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Will do. They've made quite a few of these articles about British footballers of dubious notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Franzia
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

 * And thanks for the samosas, just in time for breakfast! I enjoyed collaborating with you on this. We did OK on the DYK, about 3500 views and counting. In the future, if you start a stub on somebody interesting and think it needs expanding, you might let me know! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hope you enjoyed them! Now I’ve got myself in a samosa mood that I will try to satisfy this week. I was thinking on the subject of food and drink and remembered that Steven A. Shaw, an pioneering internet food blogger, didn’t have an article. He was quite influential and knew lots of the big names in food. He sadly died an early death. Any interest? Best, Thriley (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but probably not, at least not this week. Way too much going on in Real Life. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Gqeberha
Requesting unprotection of the page to facilitate the outcome of RM discussion, which is to move Port Elizabeth to this title. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, robertsky. I would be happy to unprotect the page Gqeberha, but how will that help? If the outcome you want is to move Port Elizabeth to this title, presumably leaving a redirect from Port Elizabeth, don't you actually need for the Gqeberha page to be deleted, per WP:G6? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It didn't occur to me to request for it to be speedy deleted per G6 since I would have performed a page swap. But yeah, I can see how it would have been requested as such if I didn't have pagemover rights. – robertsky (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, which do you prefer? I can do either. G6 is a lot simpler than a page swap but that's up to you. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * G6 would be preferrable. :) – robertsky (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have fun with the new title! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Danke! – robertsky (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That douche creating attack pages under my namespace
Not gonna lie, I'm getting tired of that person. Could we open a LTA or SPI case on them? Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 22:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Liliana. Way ahead of you. I have blocked them indefinitely. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it's far from their first case of abuse against me, with accounts such as and some others that can be found looking at deletion logs of the attack pages.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish I could block them from creating new accounts, but that option does not appear to be available to me. I have asked for help at WP:ANI. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If either of you want to do that in a structured way (there is no need to list every single account), the relevant page is Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. I have tuned in one of my antennae, but I should let you know that it's a long term problem involving some large and busy ranges (it's not insurmountable, I'm just sayin'). -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, zzuuzz! If even one of your antennae is tuned in, that is an enormous help. Looks like this jerk may go back a long, long way. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think their entire account, including all their edits and logs, has disappeared. Only their edit filter log remains. I'm not sure how this happened. 2601:647:5800:4D2:ACCB:6DAF:2617:7391 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a serious problem. When an article is deleted or stuff oversighted, the evidence literally disappears, and that's so wrong. At least with oversights, the history shows something happened, but with certain other deletions, even the history gets wiped. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how deletion has worked since forever. But when a title itself is abusive, it is right that everything at that title gets deleted, as everything there is inherently abusive. If you want to argue that we should keep abuse and harassment lying around for some reason, you'll probably be in a minority. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just think there should be a censored/disguised cue left in the history, as well as the guilty party. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a way that an entire account could have been deleted, because this is what seems to have happened. After all, nothing is showing up for contributions, logs, or CA. 2601:647:5800:4D2:ACCB:6DAF:2617:7391 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In a way. See WP:Oversight and Global locks ('hidden'). Here's a pro-tip: try Special:BlockList. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Found the entry in the block log: . It says "The account LilianaUwU is a man is already locked globally." 2601:647:5800:4D2:A516:8B7E:DD2A:21E (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here, all! I just got back to the computer after a short break and am catching up. With regard to deleted things simply disappearing, I am curious why the username cited above - created for the sole purpose of harassing Liliana - is a blue link even though it has been deleted? Aren't most deleted pages redlinks? zzuuzz, any insights? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the nature of the 'no ping' template, which uses a styled-up 'external' type link, as opposed to a normal internal one. If you look at the last 2 lines of my common.css, those two lines differentiate those types of link into pink instead of blue, which I find useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have ever seen that before, or didn't recognize it if I did. It looks kind of purple to me. So if we remove the "no ping" that will be a normal red link? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If we take a username like 'zzuuzz', if you remove the 'no ping' template you will get 'zzuuzz' which is pretty boring. If you make it an internal link you'll get 'zzuuzz' which is nonsense. If you link user:zzuuzz or write then you get an internal link, but if you also sign your comment then they (i.e. me) will also get a ping, and you get backlinks and things. However if you write , it's roughly equivalent to writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzuuzz in full, which doesn't really do anything except give you a link, and you can't tell if it exists or not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe what we should do in a case like this - where we would rather NOT call attention to something like a harassing user name - is say "with accounts such as LilianaUwU is a man and some others" without any kind of link. That way we make it less likely that anyone will look at or even find that kind of username, which IMO ought to be as suppressed as possible. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to be said for the minimalist approach. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Sylvia Wu
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, theleekycauldron. I appreciate it. Maybe you can explain something to me. My DYK for Royce Williams on August 21-22 had more than 100,000 page views over the two days it was on the front page. 35,000 on August 22 and 72,000 on August 23. 1,487 per hour. This was far and away the most viewed DYK I have ever had. But nobody called it to my attention. I was out of town when it ran, and when I eventually checked the views I nearly fell out of my chair in surprise. It was the fourth highest DYK in August. Is it just that you are the only person in the DYK system that points these things out to people? In any case, thank you very much for the notice. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates this courtesy. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @MelanieN: Hi! So, there's what I can explain, and there's what I can't. I have no earthly idea why my script didn't notify you for Royce Williams's stellar performance on the Main Page; it's not overly reliable at finding the DYK credits for various nominations, so that's my best guess. Some context I can provide is that your hook was only on the main page for one day, and that'd be the first spike you see; the reason it got so many views the following day is because of this reddit post that blew up over there, causing a much larger swing of traffic. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explains a lot! I tend to forget that there is a whole world out there that notices and comments on what we do here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan
Hi, I'm writing out of concern for the Hurricane Ivan page because the page has been consistently vandalized for a long time and was just vandalized again not even five minutes after the semi-protection of one year expired and the page was only protected for one week. I don't understand this. Can you help? Leisterian (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Leisterian, and thanks for the note. You’d really have to ask administrator Widr - they were the one who protected it for a week. It’s true that the previous protection had been for a year - October 30, 2021 to October 30, 2022 - and that there was immediate, serious vandalism as soon as that protection expired. Personally I’d have given it a much longer protection. But I will be out of town on November 6 when the current, week-long protection expires. If vandalism resumes then, request protection again at RFPP, and explain about the protection history. And I will keep an eye on the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, this concerned citizen is a tired old sock, and blocked now. Widr (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Paul Pelosi
Why is the talk page locked? I can see why the article is but not the talk page. Hammers can hurt (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the talk page came under attack by bots - posting the same disruptive note over and over and over. Literally hundreds of times, from different IPs every time. It took a lot of sophisticated admin work to deal with all that - not by me, but by much smarter people - and in the meantime protection was essential. Talk pages are usually protected only briefly, in this case for two days. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)