Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mhsb (talk | contribs)
686 edits
No edit summary
Line 220: Line 220:
::::Who really thinks that [[WP:DUCK]] DIDN'T apply? A checkuser might confirm who the account is a sock of, but the nature of the account is as obvious as anything ever is around here. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Who really thinks that [[WP:DUCK]] DIDN'T apply? A checkuser might confirm who the account is a sock of, but the nature of the account is as obvious as anything ever is around here. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::This is more of a "negative duck", though - it's not clear what that account was up to, but it's clear that they fail any reasonable comparison with a legitimate new account. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::This is more of a "negative duck", though - it's not clear what that account was up to, but it's clear that they fail any reasonable comparison with a legitimate new account. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring into attention of the board that the user [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] is carrying out a speedy deletion of the article [[2009 Sydney dust storm]] without meeting the [[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion|criteria]] for him/her to do so. He/she is also threatening blocking another Wikipedia user, behaving as an admin without having admin privileges to do so ([[User_talk:Mhsb#what is vandalism?|see my page]]). Please, can someone assist? Thanks.
--[[User:Mhsb|Mhsb]] ([[User talk:Mhsb|talk]]) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:16, 23 September 2009

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Review and proposed ban of spam-only account, Filmtvfan

    User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) is user NZ On Screen (talk · contribs). This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been linking to NZ On Screen. Additionaly nzonscreen.com fails the specific requirements of our External Links guidelines.

    See also - User_talk:NZ_On_Screen
    See also - NZ On Screen
    See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan
    See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#NZ_On_Screen
    Other Accounts

    Violations of, but not limited to:

    This user is now subject to;

    1. (Persistent spamming)
    1. (Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.).

    After being blocked previously and declined 4 times[1], this situation was sufficiently explained to NZ On Screen Project Director Brenda Leeuwenberg[2] on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago. This user has continued this past year spamming and promoting NZ On Screen, and pacing hundreds of links to her site. While there is limited discussion on the Newly created WP:EL/N, a wider administrative and community review is needed of this users behavior.--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job with the block. I have take out NZOS links from some NZ media pages on my watchlist. Mostlyharmless' revert was based in an archived EL discussion that has now been overtaken by events.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a shame. Filmtvfan is undoubtedly a SPA with a COI, but her edits benefited Wikipedia by providing reliable sources and useful links per WP:ELYES. She also asked permission for her edits, and got it, firstly at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, and then at Wikipedia talk:External links.

    Hu12 has followed policy in pressing for a block on Filmtvfan and in reverting her edits, but they has made the encyclopedia of lower quality by doing so.-gadfium 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this block is unwarranted. JzG|Guy accused the user of block evasion on their talk page. However, clear permission had been given to resume posting in early 2009. The other block justification was spamming, however many users have recently stated that at least some of these links are proper, in addition to the previous agreement reached on link usefulness. As for the violations cited by Hu12, most of them are guidelines, not policies, and all have clear exceptions that cover many of the NZ On Screen links. And that's before we even get to WP:IAR. I disagree with Hu12's statement that "'relevant' does not make exception to the multiple WP:ELNO restictions, and vio's of WP:NOT and WP:COI." This statement is a clear violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, especially given that many of the links don't actually violate the guidelines he has claimed. Furthermore, Hu12 posted a final warning to the user and then JzG|Guy came along and blocked the account even though no more edits had taken place and she had not been permitted to respond to the questions on WP:ELN#NZ On Screen. This user isn't trying to blatant violate policy as can be seen in her statement from WP:ELN: "If this community would prefer that I propose a link each time in the Talk section of an article and wait for acceptance, then I am happy to do that - I think that the proposal of waiting a week for an objection or discussion is a good one. I certainly do not wish to contravene any rules."
    The confusion we have here is that there are two types of ELs involved, both of which I think we were making progress on at WP:ELN. The first are links to video footage directly related to the article for which NZ On Screen has copyright permission to host but would be a violation to host on Wikipedia. In one case, Filmtvfan replaced a link to an unauthorized YouTube video with a link to a legal copy at NZ On Screen. Even this link was accused of being spam and reverted to the illegal link! The second type of link is to detailed biographical data on NZ On Screen that goes beyond what is in the Wikipedia article. A number of editors, including myself, feel that these links are not appropriate and that the material should be directly incorporated into the articles. The material is CC licensed. However, the sources aren't clear in many cases. Filmtvfan could be a valuable resource in enhancing the article with appropriate sources given her expertise.
    Should Filmtvfan fail to abide by the boundaries we have setup in WP:ELN and continue directly adding biographical links, I'll be the first to ask for a block. I don't think we are at that point. I deal with spammers all the time and most of them have nothing of value to contribute. Filmtvfan is not at all such a clear cut case. I have no connection whatsoever to Filmtvfan or NZ On Screen. I had never even visited any of the articles in question before this controversy came up. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with this, but the distinction isn't entirely clear cut, as I understand it. To take one example, the link on cinematographer Alun Bollinger is to a biographical type article, which contains a list of the films he has shot, and most of these link directly to copies of the entire film. There are a number of rules that could be used to include or exclude this link. Needless to say, this is a grey area (or a potentially disputed one), and will probably have to be discussed elsewhere. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that some bio links may be a special case and WP:ELN is the right place to address them. In general, I would like to see the meat of the biographies incorporated into the article so we have proper sourcing and so that others can edit and further develop the material. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Filmtvfan's only edits have been dealing with the website nzonscreen.com, as had the old account NZ On Screen. I don't see a reason to unblock unless the user plans on contributing to articles and not adding the links to other sites.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Such behavior isn't banned by WP:SPA, which is itself only an essay. The SPA distinction is useful to identify real violations, including COI. However, the COI issue is well known in this case and we've been trying to deal with it in accordance with WP:COI. Everyone starts out as a SPA. If we bite them all there won't be anyone left. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with users Gadfium and UncleDouggie. I have watchlisted a large number of the pages which links were added to. I saw nothing untoward about them, and thought that they were valuable additions. I agree that Filmtvfan has sought consensus for her edits, and then followed that consensus. Initially, as with all new users, there was less understanding of the rules, but once informed of them Filmtvfan has made an effort to follow them, and worked with other users. I think this editor would make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the points made above by Gadfium, UncleDouggie and Mostlyharmless. The edits that were made benefited Wikipedia, and the user sought permission. I would predict that this user may well have turned into a productive user if this whole process had been dealt with better. I worry that it is now too late, and much worse the person has probably told friends "don't bother with trying to add to Wikipedia, it's a closed community of pedants, who are not interested in helping you learn how to participate, nor really even interested in creating an encyclopedia as much as policing one" Lanma726 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In general agreement with the block; if the editor wants to actually, y'know, add content to articles instead if plopping in hundreds of external links to a single site, then we could certainly reconsider. Honestly, looking at some of the discussion of these links previously, the "consensus" that is being claimed above is pretty thin - two or three people in each discussion. The site may be non-commercial, but it's a government project promoting regional projects, so there's still a promotional aspect to it. Use the information thereon for building up articles, cool; simply dumping in external links, not so much. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is conceivable that some uses of the NZ film site might have value. But the title of this AN report is about a proposed ban on the Filmvfan *account*, not a blacklisting of the link. I am concerned by this recent edit, with the edit summary "(Undid revision 313081539 as per this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan)". Notice:
    1. She is restoring the link after it was removed by a regular editor
    2. Filmtvfan thinks the EL/N discussion has given her carte blanche to continue adding the link
    3. She is still adding no content to these articles, only the link
    I'd support an unblock if this editor were *restricted* from adding that link to any articles. I don't object to her putting a request to add the link on article talk pages, for consideration by regular editors. I certainly don't trust that she will understand and follow our normal editorial standards for which links belong where. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the discussion before blocking. It's my opinion that the user was well aware that adding the link was not acceptable and that requests on the talk page was the only permissible way forward; even after that, we have the diff you link. Therefore I diagnose someone to whom getting their links in place is more important than respecting the project and its contributors. It looks to me as if the user does not trust anybody to judge whether the links are OK unless they agree that they are. I note also that the user created an article on the website. The fact that the site has some external credibility is a complication, but as far as Wikipedia goes this is an absolutely standard case of linkspamming, of the type we usually handle with WP:RBI and quite often with blacklisting. They are lucky that some good faith editors have supported links to the site so that blacklisting will probably not happen (unless of course it's found that they have been doing the same on other projects, in which case it might well rise to the level of meta blacklisting). The law of unintended consequences applies, of course, to all linkspammers. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless other abuses are found, blacklisting isn't the issue here. So moving forward. None of the links to any of the discussions ammounted to any sort of "consensus" to spam Wikipedia en-mas. One or two editors mistakenly agreeing to allow an organization's marketing representative to mass spam wikipedia is misguided, and some activly encouriging this user to "keep at it" [3] is simply irresponsible. This situation was sufficiently explained to the NZ On Screen Project Director on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago in at least 4 unblock requests.[4]. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Some here need to consider why we have guidelines on Wikipedia. They are a result of wikipedias founding principles,...neutrality! Adding the same domain over and over is contradictory to this. Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites. Typically of all sites that are owned by a single company or non-profit, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture here clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests, NZ On Screen. This is a good block and not very controversial.--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I second EdJohnston's idea, the links do have some merit here and there, though seen that Filmtvfan is evading a block, and seen that they continued blatantly with what they were blocked for in the first place, I would suggest to restrict Filmtvfan for now (until further review of their edits) from adding links to mainspace themselves, they can discuss on talkpages, suggest links (but no response for a week, or even a year is not an excuse to add then the link themselves), but better, I would certainly like to see that they start writing content using their site's information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The block evasion disturbs me, and the misrepresentation of the earlier WP:EL conversations is distressing. The prior conversations said only that links to these videos were not automatically barred by the guideline, but that they must always be labeled with file size/required software. Filmtvfan seemed to interpret "not automatically prohibited" as "always allowed, even over the objections of other editors" -- and also 'forgot' to label the links.
    I'd be satisfied with a never-in-the-mainspace restriction, although the usual thing is to require block-evading socks to wait one year before requesting editing privileges. I suspect that we could find a couple of editors to keep an eye on the user's contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support EdJohnston's proposal. The recent links I looked at did have the proper labeling, but I didn't check all of them. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) has responded on her talk page because she can't post here. There's also discussion of a related block taking place there. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism

    Resolved
     – MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it. @harej 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I am the pre-eminent MFD closer, I am afraid I cannot close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism due to the fact that I participated in it. In the interest of keeping the backlog down, since it is overdue, can a neutral party please close it for me? @harej 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV/RFPP Backlogs

    Resolved
     – Both clear now. FWIW this seems more like an AN/I request :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV and RFPP need help. I'm a bit busy multitasking to take the time needed to review. Keegan (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page corruption

    Resolved

    Some type of corruption was introduced on this page from my edit at 06:03 UTC today. I don't know what could have done it but I'm working to get it fixed. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem was that Hu12 JzG|Guy posted a link to an old version of this page on Filmtvfan's talk page. I followed it here but didn't see that it was an old page because the link jumped to the bottom of the page causing the old page warning to not be visible. My apologies. I think it's all fixed now and I'll go cleanup the resulting archive mess next. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repaired the archive as well by removing the 20 threads archived immediately after my accidental page reversion. All 20 threads were already in the same file having been archived before my edit.
    Obviously we need {{D'oh!}} as a boilerplate for "I made a boo-boo" posts... :-) Guy (Help!) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas State University and Texas State University–San Marcos

    Resolved
     – AdjustShift (talk · contribs) reverted. Gabbe (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A follow anon has copied and pasted the content of Texas State University–San Marcos into Texas State University. I have no opinion as to which is correct, however, by copying the information, the edit history from the original article has been lost. Could an admin undo the copy and paste and do a move over the old material at Texas State University? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rename image request

    Resolved

    I understand that there is no easy way to rename images, but it is to my understanding that administrators could do so. I've received a request from a user to help them in renaming an image, so I've come here. =D Could someone rename [[File:Startegic_Barnstar.JPG]] to Strategic Barnstar.JPG? Thanks for your help! Netalarmtalk 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The problem is a spelling error when the file was first uploaded. Netalarmtalk 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It's now at File:Strategic Barnstar.JPG. --Masamage ♫ 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly unfree files backlog

    WP:PUF has a bit of a backlog... most recent discussions have been closed, but a number remain that are too complicated for me to feel comfortable closing seeing as how this is more legal-related stuff. If someone could take a look and try to clear out the remaining backlog, that would be great! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    General question about what to do with redirects after renaming files.

    Now that renaming (moving) files is possible again I decided to dive in and chip away at the file rename request backlog. However I'm not quite sure if I should leave the redirect behind or not after a move. Is there any consensus on this? So far I've been leaving them behind mainly because all the upload log entries still point to the old name, but assuming all other incoming links have been fixed to use the new name is there any point in leaving redirects like File:001237723.jpg and whatever behind? --Sherool (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well there is no need to fix the incoming links, anymore than you need to fix single redirects after page moves, so there isn't a need to really do anything. MBisanz talk 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the image looks unused (no "file links") if you just leave the image links pointing at the redirect, so I do tend to fix them when I rename a file. --Sherool (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, that sounds more like a bug than a feature. MBisanz talk 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, uses do show up indented under the redirect page on the "What links here" page as one would expect though, just not under "file links" on the description page. Not sure how "smart" bots that look for orphaned files are, so I've taken to just fix image links for now just in case. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving the redirects is probably a good idea as anyone viewing or restoring old versions will be getting the old name and the redirects would help here. In the case of really inappropriate names, this issue can probably be ignored (vulgar names, embedded personal names). This is a good new feature to have; many files have bad names. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, very good point. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Asterix_-_Cast.png

    This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

    Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


     Skomorokh  07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

    Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


     Skomorokh  07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please redirect my page

    I was trying to create "Zawngtah" page. I want to redirect this page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkia_speciosa since Parkia speciosa is known locally by us as "Zawngtah."

    Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaphualization (talk • contribs)

    Type "#REDIRECT [[Parkia speciosa]]" on Zawngtah. You've had an account here for long enough that you can make new pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created the redirect anyway. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD closing

    Resolved
     – Closure was based on apparent consensus. If you have any more problems, take to deletion review.

    Are admins allowed to close AFDs based own purely on their own personal opinion and completely ignore the AFD discussion? Because that seems to have happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators doesn't seem to have been followed at all.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That AFD close is within policy... virtually every vote was for keeping the article, and MoP closed it as such. In addition, I see you have a history of bad-faith nominations... Until It Sleeps alternate 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are supposed to close AFDs based on strengths of arguments, not head/vote count.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no other reasonable option than to close that as keep. To close it as "delete" would have gone directly against consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus because they didn't dispute the nomination, and if nobody disputes it then it should be deleted. If you don't believe me read it yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    4. When in doubt, don't delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean ignore the rest of the guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true at all. Going by numbers, there was unanimous consensus to keep, and I can see no real reason to discount any votes in particular for failure to comply with AfD voting guidelines. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments as I've already said twice above, none of the votes had anything to do with the nomination statement or were policy/guideline based.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what? Votes do not have to directly address the nomination statement, they just need to provide sufficient rationales to explain their reasoning. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The close was valid. Period. If you have a problem with an AFD close, go to WP:DRV first, not here. J.delanoygabsadds 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So the admin judged that WP:ILIKEIT + WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS > failure of both general & web notability guidelines? I'm not taking it to DRV because the admin isn't responding.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this marked as resolved? The closing admin is not responding so I can't take it to DRV yet.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Em, if you're really that concerned just go ahead and do it. MoP will get to it when he comes online.  GARDEN  17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. He can't take it to DRV because: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Apologies then.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <- Might be worth noting that arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and as such not gospel.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It also might be worth mentioning that WP:PUFF seems to work very well to stop articles being deleted as shown here,--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also an essay. The close was correct, let us move onward and upward. Thanks,  GARDEN  22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Don't take this to DRV. In order to have the deletion decision overturned you would have to argue why ignoring unanimity in responses would have been a better way to read consensus. I don't suspect there is enough grist for the mill here. I would endorse this if it came to DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary

    Resolved

    I don't know who to ask so I am posting here. This makes some sense because an administrator must do the work to fix this.

    Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

    The problem article is Geminoropa scindocataracta. This has been a dictionary definition for over two years. Minor edits include just adding categories.

    The text of the article is as follows:

    Geminoropa scindocataracta is a species of gastropod in the Charopidae family. It is endemic to Australia.

    That is a dictionary entry, not an article.

    Should we delete this until someone comes up with an article? Or delete the policy? Or create a new policy stating that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but some dictionary articles are permitted if the author states that the article is an exception". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but it's also a constant work in progress. I would say the only instance where an article should be deleted for being a dictionary entry is where the possibility doesn't exist that it could be expanded into an encyclopedia article. If you really think the article should be deleted though, you can nominate it for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's actually a valid stub article, the hope being that someone will come along and expand it. We have thousands of these, and as long as there is some sourced information, it's OK and doesn't offend against the WP:NOTDICT guideline. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STUB puts it well: "A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase." This article passes that test: it's about a snail. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I am a nice person. I do not go around trying to delete people's hard work. This makes more sense now. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Announcement

    Resolved
     – Message received loud and clear, an appropriate barnstar is reserved in the case of unblock.  Skomorokh  07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn’t know were to post this. I'm going to post this here if its ok.

    I am a new user on here. I made my user name on September 8, 2009 and this will be my first edit in the main space. Before I start to edit on here. I read all of Wikipedia, Policies and guidelines. I found the links to the Policies and guidelines on Template:Admin_dashboard on User:Black Kite/Toolbox. I put this Template on my user page. On the bottom of this Template it has lots of Administrator links and even links to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and New admin school and so on. Yes, I read everything and looked at all of the links. It took me around 2 weeks to finish.

    I just wanted to let you all know. So you understand why I know so much for a new user. ok. --Michael (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No new user ever has to defend their arrival or explain their level of knowledge. Now based on the above some will suspect you are, in fact, a previous user come back under a new identity. Whether this is true or not, there are 10 million users and 1680 admins. Hence we don't go examining new users until we have a reason to. Good editors who play by the rules are never a problem, don't get investigated and are ALWAYS welcome. So I shall assume good faith and welcome you on board. Regards, Manning (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, this user has apparently just been indeffed by Prodego. Until It Sleeps T • C 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, two weeks of waiting, and "Plaxico'd" after his very first edit. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Brandon also deleted his user page. However both Brandon and Prodego generally knows what they are doing so I'm not challenging. I left a polite question about it on Brandon's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirmed sock, still being investigated. Prodego talk 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who really thinks that WP:DUCK DIDN'T apply? A checkuser might confirm who the account is a sock of, but the nature of the account is as obvious as anything ever is around here. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more of a "negative duck", though - it's not clear what that account was up to, but it's clear that they fail any reasonable comparison with a legitimate new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to bring into attention of the board that the user WWGB is carrying out a speedy deletion of the article 2009 Sydney dust storm without meeting the criteria for him/her to do so. He/she is also threatening blocking another Wikipedia user, behaving as an admin without having admin privileges to do so (see my page). Please, can someone assist? Thanks. --Mhsb (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=315682718"