Talk:Powelliphanta patrickensis

Gastropods High‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1. It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you. -- ascidian | talk-to-me 12:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems regarding veracity of photos used here[edit]

Ending discussion started by an editor evading their block. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was a photo used in this article I have just removed as I am fairly certain that it is not P. patrickensis. I see there has been drama regarding the deletion of the photo before; I don't really care about what vendettas or feuds people have with other users. I am an educator in New Zealand and am simply interested in making sure the information is correct. Perhaps I am wrong; can anyone find a valid source of this image so we can clear up this mess? I remind everyone of wp:v - verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:1758:400:C925:F7C7:719E:EC5F (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, it was identified by the uploader and others on iNaturalist, refer to the deletion discussion on Commons. The uploader has been acting in bad faith trying to disrupt this image and everything related to it. Disappointingly, they seem to have resorted to proxying. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An identification provided based upon location data that is dubious. I also note the uploader withdrew their identification. As for the allegations of proxying, they don't really help and I'd appreciate if you could stay on topic. That's really quite uncalled for.

Look at the leaf litter background. P. patrickensis live in sandy, gritty, poorly drained, infertile coal measures and sandtones. They are surrounded by manuka scrubland, which are small needle-leafed conifer like plants that don't have leaves. Rarely, they live in podocarp/rata/beech dominant forest, and even that is rare. Are what is this snail sitting on? Large, leafy, broad leaved plants. It's not even close to the right habitat, that looks coastal, almost like Seddonville, where P. lignaria is from. 2404:4404:1758:400:C925:F7C7:719E:EC5F (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to show that it is not the correct image would be to provide a source that shows the correct image, regardless of whether that image can be used on wikipedia. Also, all additons must be sourced to reliable sources and can not just be added because of personal knowledge Slywriter (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaders withdrawal of their identification was a bad faith move made to "wreck" the image, in the style of "well if I can't get my way, then I'll just try to make this image worthless". Since the number of Powelliphanta experts is very small, it isn't entirely uncalled-for to suggest that you may be proxying for a colleague, as you yourself even said that you had been alerted to it by a colleague. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed VoidseekerNZ. You are on the same /64 as they were when they logged out. Reporting time, and I think I'll get a global block for you while I'm at it. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A note about the history of a picture on this article.[edit]

A high-quality picture of this snail was uploaded back in mid-to-late 2022 by VoidseekerNZ. After a long period of inactivity on the account, Voidseeker returned to Wikipedia in late January 2023 to begin a protest against the new "Vector 2022" default skin. They started with vandalism, then tried to pull an image off Commons (an image which as of today, is currently used in this article). They also soon found themselves needing to build a web of lies to support themselves in this. These lies convinced many users and very nearly got the image deleted, until they began to be pointed out and steadily countered. Upon realising that they were being found out in their earlier lies, they resorted to ever more desperate lies and bad faith tactics, such as claiming in the image was misidentified and pulling their identification from iNaturalist, claiming that their computer was hacked by some malicious actor^[1], and claiming it was a random photo they had pulled off Flikr^[2]. Eventually, it became clear that nothing they said since returning in January 2023 was able to be trusted^[3]. So then they just threw it all away and started blatantly trolling^[4]. This (unsurprisingly) ended in a block. They would also be blocked on en.wiki, and eventually globally locked.

Now why mention all this? Because they and their sockpuppets are on a campaign to remove that picture and generally disrupt Wikimedia Foundation projects (including Wikipedia) by any means possible. Along the way, they will almost certainly lie, and lie, and lie, and lie. They will obfuscate a situation and sow doubt wherever possible, but don't be taken in. The full refutation of their lies (and therefore the most powerful tool against them) is this c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg#Closure which this (memo?) is based on. The second most powerful tool against them is a global block or lock, so it is a good idea to request one if you have identified them.

Why have I put this on the article talkpage? Because this is where they must come to discuss their attempts to remove the image. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Oddly, they were simultaneously malicious enough to hack someone's computer to steal files, yet also benevolent enough to make such stolen files available under a CC-BY-SA licence, therby removing any gain they night have got from the hack in the first place.
^ strangely, this was somehow the highest quality version of all copies of this image
^ Some claims they have made are outrageously contradictory, like claiming that they are old enough to have a son who can use a computer, yet simultaneously too young to enter into contracts legally.
^ Y'know, the "hahaha trollololol" sort of trolling.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is what happens when someone takes one of VoidseekerNZ's VRT tickets at face value. Fortunately, it was caught. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? Trade (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Oddly, they were simultaneously malicious enough to hack someone's computer to steal files, yet also benevolent enough to make such stolen files available under a CC-BY-SA licence, therby removing any gain they night have got from the hack in the first place.

[2] strangely, this was somehow the highest quality version of all copies of this image

[3] Some claims they have made are outrageously contradictory, like claiming that they are old enough to have a son who can use a computer, yet simultaneously too young to enter into contracts legally.

[4] Y'know, the "hahaha trollololol" sort of trolling.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]