User talk:Ore CLT

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Message
13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Message
16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

STOP please!!!
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)

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)

Speckled Wood, Hastings - external links
Please see this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Speckled Wood, Hastings
I'm just wondering if you could bring me up to speed? I'm in China, where Facebook is blocked, so I don't know what this is all about. It's obvious by your usernames that you both represent groups that care about the park, but both your orgs seem to be on the side of protecting it. Why the conflict? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. Yes, both the organisation are supposed to be working to a common cause and we both have information to be be shared that can help the campaign. The wiki page should be a neutral source of information about the wood. There is a slight bias in the article and some of the information is...over-stated. We had put that to one side and the only information that we actually added to the page (to text that was already there) was a hyper-link to our website...which might not be viewed as vaild use of external links anyway?


 * FoSWMT have done a lot of good work for the wood, but their chairman can be a little abrasive. As far as we are concerned, we would rather we all worked together in harmony. Ore CLT (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your comment on the hyper-link. I won't add it back again. Ore CLT (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Well, you're both basically on the same side I think. Feel free to edit the article, neutrally of course. You have just as much right to edit it as anyone else.


 * As for that link, it really should remain in the external links section. I doubt very much that consensus could be reached at the talk page to have it added back into the body of the article. You can make the case at the talk page and see what uninvolved editors say. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. I'm happy to leave the link where it is. I had no idea it would such an issue or why they wanted to keep removing it. I do have other info to add which is just species related. However, I suspect we might encounter the same degree of difficulty. We'll see. BTW, the accusation on their Facebook page is that we are trying to bring down their Wiki page Ore CLT (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy the link thing is settled. I won't comment on the species matter. We'll see what happens there.


 * I think everyone is aware now that nobody owns the article. That's good.


 * There is still a lot of the article that needs work. Bits like: "Visitors come from all over the World to see this wonderful wood in the summer. Many have lived in the area before and are keen to come back to see if the Woodland is still as beautiful." need to go. I also plan to move some of the oversized lead into a section, and remove lots of words that fall into the categories of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. You are very welcome to make such edits. Please, be WP:BOLD. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...I agree with you that some of the prose is a little on the purple side, but I think FoSWMT would be incensed by us removing that. I think that we are more likely to focus on adding factual content to the species list etc. Ore CLT (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to upset him, but that's not a consideration when it comes to the article. It must contain only the facts, and not read like a promo, which it now does. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He can be a bit volatile I'm afraid to say. Maybe you could suggest it needs to be more plainly written article - just sticking to the facts? Regards tony Ore CLT (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's best not to comment on him personally. Here at Wikipedia, we comment on the edits, not the editor. Anyway, I've gone ahead and made some copy edits. Certainly not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * on a related matter, I left the following note on the other editor's talk p, and since some of it applies to you also I think I should leave it here also (and i think you can trust Anne Frodesiak for following this up--she's an experienced editor & has been doing an excellent job with it.)
 * (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 (both)  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)

Understood...though our editing thus far extends to adding a url and nothing else. If a request is made on the article talk page, who actually implements the edit? Ore CLT (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All the more reason that your conflict of interest could get in the way.


 * You don't need to make a request at article talk, you have equal rights. You can propose edits that may be controversial and discuss them, seeking consensus. It's a way to see what the community thinks. Remember, you are part of the community now. Your voice matters, and carries equal weigh to mine or anyone else's. If/when consensus is reached, you, or someone else can make the edit. So far, neither of you have used the talk page at all. That is exactly where all future discussions related to the article should take place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Speckled Wood, Hastings
More sources are badly needed to support the article. Is there anything you can dig up where you live that's perhaps not online? Maybe something at the local government or library? I think the article may be nominated for deletion otherwise. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. I'd be happy to help if I can. Is it possible for you to give me some instances of things that need supporting and I'll see what I can do? Kind regards, Tony Ore CLT (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. Let's wait till you get a new username and then address the non-Internet reference thing.


 * Also, FOSWMT has pasted a bunch of references at Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings. What do you think? Are they reliable sources? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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 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 below this notice instead. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The big bad block
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)

Would you suggest a new account or applying to change the name? afrodesiak is an intriguing choice?


 * Just pick a new username if you like. It's the easiest way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then write to me here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak so I know who you are and we can proceed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll choose a new username and I'll contact you. If I can help with the references, I will. Maybe this will ease some of the tension between the editors. What sort of citation is required for the species list?. Regards Tony Ore CLT (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)