User talk:FOSWMT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FOSWMT, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi FOSWMT! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Speckled Wood, Hastings, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks on image[edit]

Hello there. Do you have a version of this without the date stamp? Many thanks if you can provide one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can crop the image of the camera date out but . Commons will not allow me to upload it as it states the content is the same as another file. I have even tried changing the file name and this will not work either
At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Children_in_Speckled_Wood.jpg you will see "Upload a new version of this file"
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
==Done== Thankyou Anna . The other file that I changed was this not allowed because of water mark? I am presuming this was the case and reason for it being changed:-)
Which file? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first image that was changed back to non watermark version. Can you also help as when you search for Speckled Wood in the search bar. Wiki just comes straight back with Speckled Wood Butterfly and not both articles . Is this normal? As it appears a little misleading. 27 November 2012 11:27
I still don't know what image you are referring to.
I made a disambiguation page to solve the problem: Speckled Wood
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help Anna you are a star.
FOSWMT {talk} 12:12, 27 November 2012 GBT
You are most welcome. Now if I could only remember the difference between Essex and Sussex. :)
By the way, you have some funny brackets in your signature that are causing a problem I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you spelled your name wrong "User talk:FOSMT" 12:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Anna I have added some more to the Flora section you created.
Would it be possible to make this two column please?
FOSWMT {talk} 13:56, 27 November 2012 GBT
I was doing it but I got an edit conflict. Please note the "underconstruction" template at the top of the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry go ahead you got me started on new additions :-) As have lots more
data  :-)
FOSWMT {talk} 14:28, 27 November 2012 GBT
No problem. I'm all done. I can't get the columns to work. It could be my browser. There are lots of different ways to make columns, and I can't remember which works best. I'll fix that up tomorrow. Go ahead with the fungi updates. I won't edit that page. Also, please look at the talk page and suggest an infobox type. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Brilliant you are a STAR will work on evening up columns with more information as we have lots more data. Thank you so much for your help and continued support its brilliant and I have not even got our ecologists contributing directly yet :-)

FOSWMT {talk} 15:08, 27 November 2012 GBT

I am not sure what you mean acan you explain "please look at the talk page and suggest an infobox type. " thank you FOSWMT {talk} 15:11, 27 November 2012 GBT

Sure. See Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings#Infobox (An infobox is that box top right of each article that contains a photo and basic info.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

really dont mind Anna as the article is starting to look good i trust your judgement. So please go ahead than you . We have a meeting with arborical tree expert tomorrow and hope to get tpo tree positionsFOSWMT {talk} 15:48, 27 November 2012 GBT

Okay. Is it a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a park, or one of the National Nature Reserves in England? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Love the info Box idea can someone get it started and I will fill in the information that I have for the site. Thank you. FOSWMT {talk} 15:22, 27 November 2012 GBT
I will start it, but can you pick one? See the talk page and visit those similar articles. See which is appropriate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The site is a local Nature Reserve at present we are trying to get it adopted as SSI as it will meet criteria but has not been accepted or adopted yet. We are hoping that this will happen eventually but that is maybe some time off

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, FOSWMT. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 10:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, FOSWMT. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Theopolisme 12:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Speckled Wood[edit]

Sorry to zap your edit. Disambiguation pages should be kept to a bare minimum. A thousand pardons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your First Award[edit]

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
For creating Speckled Wood, Hastings. It's a fine asset to the project, and so are you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your First Service award[edit]

And you are entitled to this:

This user is a
Registered Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Very sad I contributed an article to Wiki in good faith that was pretty neutral. My article was 10 pages long full of citations. It was approved by APC and went online. Since this time editors have been systematically removing citation then body text and even making coordinate and location errors stating the site was in Essex its in East Sussex. It is now 6 paged and got a rating of 1 not 5 which it originally. I went on IRC chat and agreed with Anna to upload my references to Teahouse for the page as Wiki editors it seems had been editing my page without any text to work from as the references had been deleted by an editor. I come in this morning and I find my edits have been removed again and a notice has been posted that my account has been blocked. This feels a lot like the theft of intellectual property. As you have taken my article my citation and now blocked my account. I was hoping my conversation last night with Anna had moved things forward but it has not clearly. FOSWMT 08:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing links[edit]

Attn of FOSWMT

You have twice removed our website url link.

Please desist from doing this or give us a reason for doing so. We do not want to have to report you for vandalism

Ore CLT (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have removed this link twice as it was not appropriate content as OCLT does not need to be mentioned further due to the reasons that are in the article stating that the newer organization is responsible. Giving links would complicate this information for a reader. I can remove OCLT completely if this is more satisfactory?

The wiki page is a public resource and not owned by any orginisation or individual. We would like you to re-instate our link asd it provides a broader depth of information and resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ore CLT (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this but having written the article I would imagine I am best to judge its content! Clearly this is ambiguous so I have removed the information as it is not really necessary.

FOSWMT: Please see WP:OWN. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you: Please don't edit war. Please discuss it at talk and observe the WP:BRD cycle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We merely added a url to the text that you had created. It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what is correct on the page. The page is a supposed to be a collaborative effort to ensure balance and veracity of information. Ore CLT (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now, I don't know whether or not the url should be there. I don't know who is right because I actually haven't examined it. The most important thing is to discuss it at the talk page and not war over it. Nobody needs to be upset over this. It just needs to be discussed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the decision has already been made by a computer bot.

FOSWMT (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copy paste[edit]

"Speckled Wood is a beautiful wood in the Ore Valley. Its canopy of magnificent trees will shade you in the sun or keep you dry in the rain. The Wood is a habitat to a wealth of mammals, birds and invertebrates. There is a meandering stream that runs right through the wood. The name Speckled Wood is believed to have come from the butterflies of the same name that thrive here, the Speckled Wood (SP1861)."

That smells like copy paste. If it is, it must be rewritten. If it isn't, it must be rewritten because it's unencyclopedic and contains a lot of peacock words. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It is not a copy an paste it is the same words we have used to descibe the site on our Speckled Wood Fb Page.

It seems You want me to give up my control of this article knowing full that I have written it knowing best on its content. I am finding my judgment questioned.

Others can freely contribute to the article when it has been saved. The creator does not have special rights to control the later content. Again, please see WP:OWN. Please look after that paragraph before somebody else does. Better you do it that someone else, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP please!!![edit]

You're going to get blocked!! Please stop. Relax. Discuss. Let's take our time here.

Raise the issue at the article's talk page and others will weigh in. It's the best way. Trust me. :)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be mad at each other. This sort of thing happens all the time. We just work it out at the talk page and get uninvolved editors to give opinions. This is not a big deal. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FOSWMT (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 Look if your going to block me you can remove all of my article as this is getting ridiculous. I think you need to stop editing my article when you dont know the facts. I wrote article based on the information I have and have written professionally about on other sites.
If it is not acceptable why did you let it go live. I am quite calm but If I have removed something it is for good reason. You have added the new box and miss quoted the actual size which I have now altered. I have removed text as it is ambiguous and not necessary from an article I wrote. You seem to be now telling me that I do not know what I have written. You have added information twice that I have removed.


Are you referring to me? The only edits I have made to "Wikipedia's article" is to fix up the species list and add an infobox, and other small stuff.
I'm not going to block you because I'm not an administrator. I'm trying to help you.
I let it go live because it is acceptable. It's just not perfect. That paragraph I pointed out is unencyclopedic and possibly a copyright violation.
I'm certainly not questioning your knowledge.
It's normal that once one's creation hits the main space, and others start to monkey around with it, one feels possessive, but this is how articles improve. They eventually get knocked into shape. Please don't be upset. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Paragraph you mentioned appears on my site on our FB site it is not copyright and was written by me!

I see that you once again deleted my comment on the wood not actually being designated as a Local Nature Reserve. You know that for a fact and yet you are persisting with it. I've taken a screen shot of the comment before you deleted and will take it further if necessary. Slagging us off on Facebook is not the answer there either because we will report you for harassment like we had threaten you previously. Please listen to Anna and try to work constructively on this Ore CLT (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken a screen shot of these comments, so please do not delete these either Ore CLT (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


FOSWMT (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012

Rebecca you have already been blocked on FB for you comments and disruption and removed from FOSWMT groups. Please desist. This article has nothing to do with you . There is a recommendation form Hastings Borough Council this site is a LNR and is available to be viewed in the minutes of the cabinet meeting

Don't worry about screenshots. Click history tab above and all that was ever written on this page is there and can never be removed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should all be discussed at the centralized location of the article's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca is only making that comment because you have already blocked us on Facebook. We have reported you to Facebook for harrassment, so please remove your libellous comment. Ore CLT (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cabinet of the council supporting the idea of a Local Nature Reserve is not the same as being classed as a LNR. Pointing that out is not "slagging you off" as you put it. The wiki page has to be accurate in all respects otherwise none of the facts can be relied upon. Ore CLT (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have been told to today that the comments made on behalf of OCLT was a man called Tony who did not even state he was not Rebecca above when questioned. FOSWMT

Speckled Wood, Hastings - external links[edit]

Please see this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to external links[edit]

I have noticed OCLT web site being added to external links I have not removed this as yet but would like to know who added it please?

I did it. I removed it from the body of the article, and added it to the external links section. You say you haven't removed it "yet". Do you wish to? The organization that you represent has a link in that section, correct? Why shouldn't OCLT?
If you wish to see who made what edit, simply click the "history" tab at the top of any page. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Anna If you could add one for FOSWMT that would be sufficient http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/ This has all caused a huge row this afternoon on FB all from one person and to be honest I am a little disappointed that doing this and trying to do something good would cause so much bad feeling. Personally it would have been better for people submitting information to direct changes through me as is done with our group so that I could ensure they was put on. Unfortunately I realize that Wiki does not work like this.

I have also been told that the line in the first paragraph 'It is classed as a Local Nature Reserve' has been changed by FOSWMT today when this is not the case. I would be grateful if you would write to OCLT and point out this is untrue. It has not been changed at all as is in the original article when it was was put in and this has not been changed. Thank you for your patience with this you are a STAR. User:FOSWMT (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OCLT cannot submit changes to FoSWMT because you have blocked us. We would prefer to maintain our external link as it is and make any other necessary changes directly...as per the spirit of Wiki. We are aware that the wood is not classed as a Local Nature Reserve. Let's leave it at that. Ore CLT (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removal of statement based on two ecologists presenting letters to the Cabinet in Hastings and FOSW[edit]

Can you tell me why the Words It is classed as a Local nature reserve have been removed from my article when I have two letters from leading ecologists including Dr Patrick Roper stating that in there experience that Speckled Wood should be classed as a Local Nature Reserve.

I am finding things are being removed from my page without due diligence or asking me if they should be I would be grateful if this desisted and I was asked first for clarification as I find it very rude.

FOSWMT {talk} 22:01, 27 November 2012 GBT

(1) We only use published sources, not personal letters. (2). That it should be classed as a reserve is very different from it actually being classed as a reserve. (3) Nobody owns a page. Our rule is quite the opposite: seeWP:COI. That you are associated with the subject is a particularly good reason why you should not edit it, but make all requests for edits on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that from a scientific background which Wiki pretends to be from that a letter from an expert would be adequate testimony, wherever the letter resides.

Coordinates changed from actual Coordinates[edit]

Can you tell me why the coordinates for the location of this site have been shortened as they would not fit into your input box and now have been changed to an incorrect position.

Can you please stop editing code that you do not know about as it is introducing errors!

Coordinates should be 50 degrees 52 minutes 16.332 seconds N, 0 degrees 36 minutes 18.699 seconds.

Kelapstick, removal of citations[edit]

We are aware you have removed two citations stating this is no soap box them added comment stating not in citation given ? I am confused as you removed the other two then have stated this?

FOSWMT.

The third citation is a duplicate of the first citation, which doesn't actually say that it is classed as a nature reserve. The Friends of Speckled Wood website is not a reliable source to reference a contentious thing, such as the status of this park, I called it a WP:SOAPBOX because you clearly want to use the article to push the agenda of Friends of Speckled Wood, as one can easily see by your username. Also see my question for you here. When you say something is "own work" it means that you made it, not saved it from the internet and uploaded it to Wikipedia/Commons. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstic our only agenda of this site is to be a public site that we can contribute to as a group to increase the knowledge regarding Speckled Wood. All the photos are my own work they are also used on material in FOSWMT documents. You asked me to provide citations which I did where unfortunately these documents reside on our server. There was supposed to be three separate citations to three unique articles a letter from Dr Roper a Letter from Dr Price and our own document which was submitted to cabinet in Hastings. You have even asked me to remove date stamp from my camera on some. I am not sure what you are stating is wrong.

It's not the photographs I question, it is the maps, you uploaded a map that was UK Crown Copyright, and listed it as your own work. You uploaded a geology map which is likely also Crown Copyright, and listed it as your own work. As for your agenda, as your username is an acronym for Friends of Speckled Wood Management Trust, and the big text at the top of their website says Speckled Wood is under threat from developers, speculators and your local councillor has stated that this development is inappropriate. I find it highly unlikely that you don't have an agenda of some sort. And the letter did not say that it is a nature reserve, it said it could be listed as one, not that it is one, as the article stated. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask before just cutting content reporting inappropriately when you dont know the facts. We had already had this conversation with out Local Council regarding copyright and the maps were hand drawn again and were used in our consultation alongside the Council. I am not sure of the geology map as it is very old and most likely out of copyright. I will look again at the letters and articles and rewrite.--FOSWMT 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at, but the bottom of the zoning map actually says "© Crown Copyright and database right [2012]. Ordnance Survey [100021328]". The geology map was taken by making a screenshot from the British Geological Survey website, I was able to replicate it in about 5 minutes (without even knowing where Hastings is). That website has a large © in the top right hand corner, thus, both those images are subject to copyright. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


My apologies then as you have the map from the Council not our own LOL Eitherway they have been removed.--FOSWMT 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Even the map on the FOSWMT website has the crown copyright notification on it. Also, there is no reason to remove the photographs that you took, should you wish to add them again. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add I will not add any images further to your site if you want these you must find your own. As I am dismayed that you would not have contacted me about this. You still have not commented on my species list which I had to remove as it had no citation! FOSWMT 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
perhaps you will see this on the OCLT website too as they use them too from the council FOSWMT 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Hello, FOSWMT. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Speckled Wood, Hastings, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to add the size of the area to the panel on the left[edit]

Wiki seems to be ignoring the sizes to the width and length I put in the page . Can anyone help FOSWMT

Post at Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings. That is the right place. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Length and width are not standard parameters in Template:Infobox park, likely because many parks are of irregular shape. It was included in Central Park, where Anna copied the template from. It may be a historic, and now depreciated parameter. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO REMOVE MY ARTICLE?[edit]

THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS I WANT MY ARTICLE REMOVED.

FOSWMT

You need to read WP:OWN and WP:DELETE. Hope that helps, WaggersTALK 14:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IT APPEARS I CANNOT THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS IT IS MY TEXT THAT I ENTERED INTO WIKI. YOU WILL GET NO MORE COPY FROM ME.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Speckled Wood, Hastings, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Cleanup, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Anbu121 (talk me) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Species[edit]

I removed species as not of it was citated and could not be proved it existed there.

I have had to remove the species list as with inline what I have been told you will not except citation of a letter as proof of anything that resides on my server as result this material was deleted.

--FOSWMT 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's step back a minute[edit]

I suggest we all have a nice cup of tea.

FOSWMT, some points:

  1. As per the links above, you do not own the article on Speckled Wood, yes you created it, however there is a notice when you edit a page that states "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", which means that it is free for anyone to use. The article is not owned by anyone.
  2. Deletion: You cannot request an article you created be summarily deleted if others have contributed to it, because again, it is not owned by you or anyone else.
  3. Images: As I said above, I don't question the ownership of the pictures, however the maps are clearly copyright of the UK Crown. They were uploaded to Wikimedia commons and listed as your own work. That is incorrect, they have been nominated for deletion. That is also however a Commons issue and not a Wikipedia issue (while sever editors work on both projects.) The maps have been nominated for deletion at Commons as copyright violations.
  4. The conflict of interest tag at the top of the article is appropriate as you Ore CLT (talk · contribs) have a close connection to the park. It is not uncommon for editors to write articles about things they feel strongly about, however neutrality must be maintained.
  5. The better part of the article is not sourced using independent reliable sources and is written using original research. Wikipedia publishes facts that are supported by independent reliable sources, not personal opinion on the beauty of the park (for example).
  6. The article reads like it is written to promote the area as a nature reserve (or something like that) to avoid being developed into housing.

Now, if I have come off as brash today, I apologize, and the warning left by Anbu121 (talk · contribs) was excessive (usually a Level 3 warning isn't given to someone right away). Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, even if it doesn't seem that way. Speckled Wood needs a lot of work to be brought into line with Wikipedia policy, and that will involve removing a lot of material, and writing it more neutrally. Having said that, you can't just say that you want the article deleted because it won't be written the way you want to, that's not the way Wikipedia works. I do hope that you decide to stay with Wikipedia, and consider writing about things that you are not so closely connected to. Regards, --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have been sitting back and have watched ratings sink my work destroyed and feel that contributing was a waste of time. You first remove external link . Then remove body text referring to it stating its no longer citated . This is slowly reducing the article which I feel was not weighted in favour of FOSWT just factual. Despite this information is removed . Why do I need sit back when I am not the one deleting the other parts of the article. I am just following your example. FOSWMT

I don't mean sit back and do nothing, just step back for a minute, and everyone calm down a bit, read the links that were provided to you. I don't think it was your intention to promote Speckled Wood, but the writing of people feel strongly the subject tends to show through, even if not to them. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I was going to write another article it most likely would be on a subject i know nothing about that way it would be a short article just like the one you have now! which has slowly gone down in ratings as people have removed content instead of asking for verification.
I have a bet running that in a week this article will not exist or will just say Speckled Wood as its the only bit that can be established.

Paranoid feelings of Grandeur[edit]

I have wonder why Wiki. or collective editors know more than me on the subject which I wrote about. I have also been told by these parties and a post on my article that I am not able to be neutral yet my article is now nothing like it was went through APC without alteration. Do I sense that the editors have this problem?

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find these buttons

The ~ button is to the left of the number 1, the signature button is beside the large I when you are editing a page. It looks like a pen writing something. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware all computer keyboards have tildes,though their location may vary, if your does not then you can click on the signature button or located above the edit window. Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked but it does this--FOSWMT 17:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize[edit]

this is now so out of hand that this talk page is longer than the article--FOSWMT 17:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Species section in History of edits[edit]

The Species list that was part of my document is now missing from the history of edits and I cannot furnish it to the ecologists. I would be grateful if one of the editors could locate it and add it to this post FOSWMT 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is stil in the history here [1] RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speckled Wood, Hastings - species list[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest, though you may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets.

If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. If you prefer to be unblocked for the purpose of changing your username to a username which complies with our username policy, so that your contributions with this username are recorded as contributions of your new username and rather than creating a new account, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice instead. Thank you.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The big bad block[edit]

Don't worry. It's not a big thing. Just pick a new username and carry on. Really. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the user's behavior on IRC has clearly shown that he shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia until he shows at the very list some willingness to follow our basic policies and understand what Wikipedia is about. Snowolf How can I help? 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The change of username isn't a big thing. And I am too starting to think that this user should not be editing. His edits show a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward[edit]

I see that you are upset. Please don't be. We are trying to work it out. Per our discussion at IRC, you posted at Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings#list of external references for article, but didn't preamble the list with an explanation as to why you pasted the references there. Please do that. Ask the community for feedback on the credibility and reliability of those references. I asked you to do that several times and IRC, but you never responded.

Please do your best to absorb what we are all trying to convey. Many points we are trying to express seem to fall on deaf ears. Please do your best to communicate back and forth, and we will make much better progress. We are all looking for a good end result: an article that is factual, supported by references, and encylopedic in the way it's written. That's what you want too, right?

Please pick a new username and we can carry on. Let's get this resolved, okay? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the feedback request for you[edit]

Please see: Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings#list of external references for article

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FOSWMT&oldid=1142996396"