User talk:FeijoaSalsa

FeijoaSalsa, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FeijoaSalsa! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Kauri dieback

Hi there; I noticed you're making quite a few changes to this article. The text was vetted by several kauri dieback experts in an edit-a-thon in 2018 (Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland/Kauri dieback) and at that point was an accurate reflection of the science on kauri dieback. If you're wanting to change factual information on the page, please double-check that you're not contradicting text that was corrected and referenced by those researchers back in August – one of them was the scientist who described and named the organism. You're questioning the contribution of the organism to the disease, for example, based on a 1989 reference. This doesn't seem to reflect the consensus of recent research. Also, TERRAIN is largely drawn from Wikipedia by an amateur naturalist and not a reliable source. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm not sure how to respond to this email I received. Is this the right place to put it?

I have concerns about the accuracy of the information in the previous edits. Some comments were factually incorrect. eg. "The only forest that has been regularly monitored for kauri dieback using a scientifically peer reviewed methodology is the Waitākere Ranges." (???) I have made an edit and provided a link showing, The Auckland Council Kauri Report 2017 authored by one of the wiki editors in that forum has no name in the peer review box on it's report. Regarding the comments they had made about the percentage of the forest affected, the Massey Report reviewed the epidemiology of the study and found serious gaps in the data and he said that no conclusions could be drawn. I have provided that reference.

The other key independent review was the "independent review of the state of Kauri Dieback Knowledge", by Bio-protection research p 8. who says The KDP strategy document (keep Kauri Standing) "implicitly defines Kauri Dieback as synonymous with P. Agathidicida. This may be problemaytic. First, reports of 'dieback' based on symptoms may or may not be later confirmed to be caused by P agathidicida (waipara et al._) Unless these symptoms are always confirmed to be related to P agathacida, it would be incorrect to term them Kauri dieback under the implicit KDP definition."

Please also note that the Terrain quote I referenced - please find the original source here. It was by the Tree Council - aka Mels Barton - one of your editors who said in a Q&A press release "Q1. What is kauri dieback caused by?

A. A microscopic water mould called Phytophthora agathidicida. It is new to science and lives in the soil and has two forms. The soil form is in tough spores called oospores that can survive in dried soil on boots and equipment for up to 8 years (and counting). It also has a water borne spore with a tail that can swim called a zoospore. However this is short lived and is killed by seawater, but can move through the water film in the soil up to 3m per year." Link

I believe that the edit in your document that said it was solely soil borne was misleading.

Please note one of your editors has contracts directly linked to the disease and also is owner of a public relations firm.

Thanks

Couple of things. First, sign your posts on talk pages. Second, substantial disagreements with the content of the article, especially if you're accusing some scientists of commercial interests, should happen on the article's Talk page. You're also required to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus, not replace this with the statements in one report. I suggest we move this discussion to the Talk page, start several headings where you state your objections, and give people a chance to leave their feedback. I won't have a chance to work on the article for a couple of weeks, but I can point some other editors to it. Thirdly, do you have any professional or scientific connection to kauri dieback that might cause you to have a conflict of interest? It sounds like you know some of the scientists personally and disagree with their methodology. Are you connected in any way with the reports you cite? It'd be good to declare this on your user page. Currently you're anonymous, whereas the scientists (not editors, you're conflating the two) who participated in the Kauri Dieback wikiblitz are all named. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giantflightlessbird, Firstly, Thank you I will sign my posts in future, as I said I haven't used this forum before. 2. " do you have any professional or scientific connection to kauri dieback that might cause you to have a conflict of interest?" (No) "It sounds like you know some of the scientists personally and disagree with their methodology." (Yes -not personal friends, but a known local professional activist in our community on many issues) "Are you connected in any way with the reports you cite?" (No) 3. "You're also required to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus, not replace this with the statements in one report." Surely a fact is better than an inaccurate consensus. The wiki page said that the Waitakere survey was the biggest "peer reviewed" study in NZ. It is NOT peer reviewed, unless they can provide a link to it. The peer review box on the document is blank. They give a date but no name, and no reference at the end. Nor is it available on council's website. What is available is the Massey University Epidemiology review. The Council's document doesn't reference the Massey report which found because most of the "data" was observations from air or ground. , they can determine "KauriDieback" as in observations of ill health. But that "the Auckland data is of limited use if we want to conduct

an analysis to identify factors associated with PTA being present." The other important review undertaken by the KDB programme is here. Which questioned the origin of PTA and also said that the PTA might not be the precipitating problem, that the studies to date were taken a single drive approach. "https://www.kauridieback.co.nz/media/1537/14-independent-review-of-the-kdb-programme-a_black-_-i_dickie-2016.pdf" So I've cited two important studies that provide questions with some of the statements that have been made. I will attempt to figure out how to use the talk area. Thx. Feijoasalsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:4096:6400:75C8:3BBE:87A2:B091 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you've been adding more information to the page that doesn't reflect the majority view of the research in this area. Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus; dissenting views are worth a small comment, but shouldn't outweigh what most researchers conclude. You certainly shouldn't be changing the article header to represent non-standard views and give a misleading account of the consensus in this area. I mentioned these objects back in May, but you seem to have ignored them, and continued as before. I don't want to argue about the article content here – that's for the Kauri dieback Talk page, and you should start off by summarising your key objections with the article there, not radically changing the article, and certainly not deleting well-sourced information you disagree with. I'm just warning you that continuing doing this sort of thing will lead to ALL of your contributions being removed while we sort the problem out. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The panel you used to create the page included Mels Barton who owns a political lobbying pr company and is the "spokesperson for the rahui" and has been advocating for the closure of the forest. That is not independent nor in line with Wikipedias rules regarding PR people. The information I added is scientifically published material with original sources to scientific published resource. If you have a problem with one of the items could you please say what that particular piece of content that you disagree with is?

I have a problem with some of the original panels sourcing. For example, "A 2016 report estimated that 83% of track users were failing to clean their footwear at the cleaning stations provided.[51]" Is referenced to Helen King - Stuff - That's not source material it should link to the actual study .

I also take issue with this comment (note I haven't removed either of the comments despite the issues) which is misquoted,poorly sourced and from questionable documents. The wikipedia comment says, "This can be seen as 71% zones of the infected trees in the Waitakere Ranges are within 50 metres of public walking tracks.[41]" 41 reference is White, Rebekah (January–February 2018). "The Last of the Giants" New Zealand Geographic (149): 64–85. That is not the source of the science that is the journalists article who i think attended the original meeting to write this copy citing her own report?! The source for this goes back to the Auckland Council Kauri Dieback Report 2017. which actually says, " Around 21% of the kauri area directly along the track network was shown to be infected, with around 68% of all kauri dieback zones within 50m of the track network (Hill et al., 2012 technical report). " So the source is Hill et al. 2012 Technical Document. But that document doesn't exist and it's not published. Under LGOIMA they provided lee hills document which is not actually a technical document at all, it has a completley different name, names no authors, has no date, has no council logo. Questions to Auckland Council said there is no record of any internal peer reviews of the report. It appears to be an interns report. So no wonder they put the journalists link, because there is no published document or piece of credible science that says 71% zones are infected. And it's a misquote. It should be taken down. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you clearly have a lot of issues with the article. Here are my recommendations.

Read the Help in Wikipedia and learn how to format a conversation, and sign your name. This is the minimum requirement for having a discussion. You'll also learn how to format sources properly, what a header is for, and the style an article's written in.
You also seem to have personal knowledge of and connection to the people and issues concerned, and it would be good to create a User page and disclose all of those, so people can see if there's any conflict of interest.
Have conversations about the article content on the Talk page where everyone can see them and contribute, not on your own Talk page.
You have basic issues with the science being cited in the article, so start a new section in Talk for each issue you have with the article, list your proposed changes, and see if people agree. Only when there's a consensus there should we be making significant changes to what the article says.
Don't use your own opinions or original research to change an article: it has to be based on reliable published sources. Read what they are. Newspaper and magazine reporting is a reliable published source, better in some cases than primary scientific research articles.
NZ Geographic is a reliable source. Full stop. It has extensive, well-researched reporting and fact checking. You can't remove info from NZ Geo just because you think it's not well-sourced, or you have a hypothesis that it's based on a bad report. If you have better information, from a different reliable published source, you're welcome to add that to the article as well and point out the difference, as long as you're summarising the current scientific consensus (not the 1970s or 1980s).
Attacking individuals and their motivations is irrelevant, all that matters are reliable sources. Also, claiming people are biased or corrupt on a public forum like your Talk page is a bad idea. Best avoided.
It seems like you have an axe to grind about certain individuals and organisations connected with Kauri dieback, and you want to use the Wikipedia article to get your point of view across. That's not a good idea – it can lead to an edit war, you getting blocked, and the wasting of the time of lots of volunteers. If you have strong opinions on this area, I recommend you step away from the Wikipedia article and write and publish something in print that can be cited as a reliable source.

Looking forward to discussions on the Talk page. In the meantime I'll go through and take out unsourced claims until they've been discussed. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Giant Flightless Bird. I will read the help page. I thought I had signed it and the top of the page here says "talk page" so it's a bit confusing.

I do not have a personal connection to the people in your page and have no conflicts of interest. The person I've mentioned is public relations person who is regularly in the paper quoted making public comments and was on your hackathon. As was Jack Craw made public comments in stuff and then parliamentary submissions regarding a funded trust to be set up in relation to Kauri Dieback of which he is CE. I have never met him - hes made those submissions are public on parliaments website. My issue is strictly that those comments need to be accurate and scientifically based.
1. "Don't use your own opinions or original research to change an article: it has to be based on reliable published sources. Read what they are. Newspaper and magazine reporting is a reliable published source, better in some cases than primary scientific research articles." - I haven't. Can you give an example of an opinion that I've put that you disagree with. I've only posted public scientific research.
2. # "NZ Geographic is a reliable source. Full stop." - Except the 70% of track comments isn't reliable. Unless she can source a scientific reference. The reference actually says 68% and it's also linked to a technical document Lee Hill et al. 2012. That doesn't exist and isn't public. It's not a technical document at all. It has no Council logo, no named author, and council can find no record of any internal peer reviews. There are complaints with council regarding the Lee Hill et. all document.
3. " Attacking individuals and their motivations is irrelevant, all that matters are reliable sources. Also, claiming people are biased or corrupt on a public forum like your Talk page is a bad idea. Best avoided." I've never said someone is corrupt. I said she owns a pr company. That is true. And relevant. And was in response to your assertion that I had some sort of bias. I don't . Just a concerned local.
4. " It seems like you have an axe to grind about certain individuals and organisations connected with Kauri dieback, and you want to use the Wikipedia article to get your point of view across." Again another ad hominem attack. If you have an issue with something I wrote you should cite the problem with that instead of the personal attacks. I have clearly stated I have no conflict of interest, I am not financially involved in anyway, I am not a pr person, I am concerned over a false narrative used to close our regional park. My concerns have focused on the content of the article including concerns over the sourcing of particular statistics.
5. And I've also got another fact I have concerns over please that I would like to see sourced or removed. "A 2016 report estimated that 83% of track users were failing to clean their footwear at the cleaning stations provided.[51]" The source is an article by Helen King of Stuff. Has she got a reference for this. The Auckland Council Kauri Dieback Report sites Sam Heggie-Gracie as the report linked to foot cleaning. Here is the link to the Heggie-Gracie Results - Unfortunately it will not let me show the link It is the Kauri Dieback Programmes facebook page Sept 12 2014 - Kauri Dieback Programme wrote next to the graphs " Auckland Council have been monitoring awareness and compliance on their parks for the last few years. Sam Heggie-Gracie compiled data comparing data between the last two summers: awareness of kauri dieback improved from 72% in 2012/13 to 81% in 2013/14 and proportion of people using cleaning stations increased from 71% to 79% over this time. Check out his full poster on our website or through the link: " sorry it is blocking me putting links. So that is a huge difference in the Stats. Heggie Gracies was a report where they actually went out and looked at how many people used the cleaning stations and it had increased from 71 to 79%. Can Stuff please provide a source link for their statistic because that is very different to the Heggie Gracie link I've provided.

Thanks Signed FeijoaSalsa (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an article has also been put up on Spinoff spreading the same mis-information. "Kauri dieback is in the news. After 10 years of spread, this incurable fatal disease has infected up to 80% of trees in some parts of the Waitakere Ranges." There has not been 10 years of spread. It was discovered in 1972. There has been 47 years of observation. And it is not spreading on G.B. according to MPI's John Beechman document. Also 80% of trees are infected in parts of the waitakere ranges!!! Is there a source for that. What is the best way to get this corrected. It has not been spreading for 10 years. " but we now know 71% of the dieback zones are within 50 metres of a public walking track" As per above info this info is referenced to from the Lee Hill 2012 Technical document that isn't published and isn't a technical document has no authors, no council logo, and no peer reviews. It doesn't make that statement... "public walking track, which aren’t the preferred haunt of feral pigs." Actually. Walking tracks are the favourite path for feral pigs they like humans will take the easiest path. And the map with the lee Hill 2012 report does show a strong correlation with pigs. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WestWards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WestWards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WestWards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Composition bar

Hello. At WestWards, you provided a composition bar in the infobox. It is not clear to me what the 1 of 8 bar is meant to represent. Please label it with what it's meant to convey. If it is meant to refer to Turner being the only WestWards member sitting on the 6-person Waitakere Ranges Local Board and is a typo for 1/6, please note that the article is about the party, not Turner's personal achievements, so the bar shouldn't be there. Akld guy (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akd Guy Thanks for the headsup. Yes you are correct it is 1 in 6. I have corrected that error. Should the bar be there? I copied the political panel info box format which seems to be standard for political party info and is the same format as other Auckland Local Body Parties: Auckland Future, Shore Action etc, these all include a composition bar.

I have fixed it for you. WestWards does not have a colour template, so I changed the colour to "Independent" because the party's colour that you used was inappropriate. Now some advice:

Please sign your posts on this Talk page. You can do that by typing four flag characters (~) one after another or by clicking the four that are displayed right after "Sign your posts on talk pages:" when typing a post.

Indent your posts when replying to someone. For example, when you typed Hi Akd Guy above, you should have indented with the colon character (:). I've done that for you. Notice that I indented twice (::) when replying to your reply. This makes it easier to follow who is replying to whom. Akld guy (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(:::) Thanks Akd Guy for chanigng the colour. Perfect. And thanks for the signature tip. Cheers. 01:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)FeijoaSalsa (talk)

Uh, you don't use the brackets, only the colon and flag characters. Akld guy (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Thx FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello FeijoaSalsa, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Waitakere Ranges have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded links

Hello, I'm Gadfium. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Waitākere Ranges Local Board. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -gadfium 04:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Feijoa Salsa. Thanks for the info re external links. The link was to a WestWards party page, previously the name linked to the WestWards page which was consistent with other local boards, and with the other party who were on the Waitakere Ranges local board - the Future West party who have a link to their page. However the WestWards page seemed to have been taken down by someone who appears to have been politically motivated. The person who removed it said that one candidate didn't make a party noteworthy. Which seems an arbitrary rule they made up. Meanwhile they now have two people on the board so they should now be allowed a page. At the same time the page was taken down, a Future West party page appeared. I'm not aware of this nastiness in any other local board. The Kaipatiki local board wiki page for example two parties that are on the board have links to wiki pages. It seems extremely unjust. Whatever they chose it should be clear, fair and consistent. Either WestWards and FutureWest should have pages, or neither. So when i saw their was an option to add an external link I thought perhaps since they took down the page then a link so that people know what westwards actually means is the best way forward so as not to offend anyone.

I've read Wiki's guidance on External links. "What normally can be linked : Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site", The link I added was to the official site. And was correct and on topic. So is it just that there was no reference at the bottom of the page that is the specific issue. Thanks.

Since WestWards now has more than one board member and they were elected at a normal local body election rather than in a byelection, it may be appropriate to reconsider whether the ticket would be an appropriate subject for an article. It would most likely come down to whether reliable third party sources have written about the ticket (as opposed to writing about individual candidates or brief mentions of the ticket in a more general article). Since you appear to have a connection with WestWards, you should not attempt to write such an article yourself (see WP:COI, but you could post a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles#History, politics, law, and society.-gadfium 06:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No I don't have a connection with WestWards anymore than general public interest. I guess I will have to rewrite it.

Personal views in kauri dieback article

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have removed the previous conversation from our talk page. Which gave the links and the peer reviewed papers for the corrections to the article. (not my personal opinion) And also deleted the comments that showed the conflicts of interest in your original wiki thon contributors who cited their own un-peer reviewed unpublished papers. The changes I made were not my opinion. The article you have written is scientifically false. And the original contributors biased. Including one who owns a pr lobbying company and has an interest in this issue. You have deleted the factual comments that Kauri Dieback is caused by climatic conditions in symphony with a number of different phytopthoras as per the governments own science plan. Phytopthora Agathadicida is not the singular cause of dieback. It is not even the most commonly linked with dieback trees. It is worth noting that Kauri like Beech trees cannot regenerate without a gap. Beech trees are also undergoing a dieback. DOC has called this a natural event. The information you have put up is one sided and you cancel anyone who dares question your unsupported narrative. Your Statements are not backed up with peer reviewed articles or citations.FeijoaSalsa (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)feijoasalsaFeijoaSalsa (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed anything from this Talk page as you can see from the edit history. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeijoaSalsa (talk)Oh I see we are now not on the same thread. This appears to be at my personal page. I apologise for the confusion. You have however deleted all my changes which had original source peer reviewed science. And are using statements about spread based on a 2011 council report that is not in the public domain and doesn't support your statistical assertions. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)feijoasalsaFeijoaSalsa (talk)[reply]

I've tried to break down the discussion a bit on the Talk:Kauri dieback page. Please try to keep the discussion to what is an accurate summary of the current consensus of published sources, not your own personal take on the issue. Wikipedia is not a forum for challenging mainstream views, it's a summary of them. Minority viewpoints, like the claim that P. agathacidida is not the primary cause of kauri dieback, will be covered to the extent they're present in the current reliable sources. To keep the discussion manageable, start new sections for each of the specific points you have an issue with, and list the references that support that point as I've done. Please indent your replies with one or more colons (:) so we can follow the conversation. Also note this kauri dieback is not "my" article, and I didn't write it. It's had multiple authors, even since eight people collaborated on it in August 2018. Personal attacks and accusations of bias and conflict of interest are also unacceptable in discourse. Please continue discussion about the content of the article on its Talk page where other people can see and participate,. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeijoaSalsa (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Your views are not mainstream nor factually accurate or backed up with peer reviewed science. Frank Podger is the leading Plant Pathologist of Auckland University. They even named the University wing after him. He found Kauri Dieback was cuased by Phytopthora cinnamomi in the Waitakere Cascades and KareKare and provided soil tests, photographs of the dieback and published peer reviewed paper.. Given that Barton, Waipara, Craw et all who lead the media campaign based on a false date (calling it a new disease), false data (misrepresented their unpublished soil tests), and false history (they hid that Gadgil had discovered it and hid that Podger had found it due to Cinnamomi) by saying it was new and discovered in 2009. The Government science plan acknowledges that Kauri Dieback is caused by multiple phytopthoras how much more mainstream do you want. The Kauri Dieback page should be a discussion of the scientific fraud that took place Because a scientist with a pr communications firm knowingly misrepresented the disease as a new one and campaigned to close the forest and then made a public parliamentary submission that a group they had formed should get $2million a year to run the forest and it's biosecurity and it should be closed to all others. FeijoaSalsa (talk)Feijoa SalsaFeijoaSalsa (talk)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kauri dieback. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have failed to get consensus for your view on the talk page.-gadfium 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are false and scientifically incorrect. The information you displayed is wrong and scientifically fraudulent. 1. The reference provided (1) Beever et al. is not proof that "kauri dieback" is caused by Agathadicida. It was simply a name change from Hevae to Agathadicida. Dr Peter Gadgil who discovered the organism had publicly lambasted Beever and his crew for hiding his research and discovery of dieback in 1970. 2. Dieback is not caused by Agathadicida and the field research in Council's 2017 and 2021 soil tests show that Agathadicida is rarely under sick trees. 3. Media, council and the government and communication activists falsely claimed that "Agathadicida was a new unknown deadly pathogen" This is FALSE. It was not new. It was not discovered in 2018. It was discovered in 1971. And the forest closures and the claim it was a new unknown pathogen were verifiably false. This is scientific fraud. Presenting false information to close the forest. Furthermore genetic testing (winkworth et al) has shown it is genetically distinct in different places (so didn't travel by footwear) it has changed in situ over long periods of time and is likely to predate human arrival. And finally you ignore the work of Frank Podger and Newhook 1971 the leading expert at Auckland University who reported that P. Cinnamomi (not agathadicida) was causing dieback symptoms in the Ranges (at the Cascades and Keri Keri) exacerbated by drought and drainage issues. So no my edits are factually correct. And backed by science. Agathadicida is not causal of Kauri dieback. The soil tests from Coucnil do not support that assertion. Furthermore dieback (which occurs in Beech and Kauri) is part of a natural process occassionally just like mast years of seed. Kauri and Beech cannot renew without a gap. See the NZ encyclopedia. The NZ beech trees are actually undergoing dieback and DOC calls it a natural process. NZ Kauri are healthy. Great Barrier is healthy and Agathadicida has been their since 1971. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you find a different hobby. If you continue to post such rants on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.-gadfium 02:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly your post lacks consistency. If we look at Phytopthora Ramorum is listed under its' scientific name on wikipedia. Not the marketing campaign term of Sudden Oak Death. If you list it as Kauri Dieback you have to be prepared to follow and report the science. If you want a post on P. Agathadicida then make a post on P. Agathadicida. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally if the person who promotes themselves as a scientist and then promotes the disease and closure solution in media, but is actually a comms consultant with their own lobbying firm, and is also a paid parliamentary staffer and they didn't disclose their real job...then yeah. It is relevant. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Your reference 1. The basis for you claiming that Kauri Dieback is caused by PA. Is only an article. And 2. The article doesn't make that claim nor contain any field research. It's Gadgil's work which is the foundational work. And Podger and Newhooks work on Cinnamomi causing dieback in the ranges. both in 1971. Both said linked to drought. Instead you only attack the person. You fail to engage wit the fact that the reference for this serious claim is weak and false. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a rant. It is factual scientific claims. I suggest you deal with the claim. Did Council's 2017 report, and media falsely claim that Kauri Dieback was a new unknown pathogen. Yes FACT. Have they ever corrected the false claim. NO. Was the claim used to close the Waitkaere Ranges using a precautionary approach on the false premise that it was a new disease and they didn't know what would happen. YES. Is it illegal to make false scientific claims. YES. Did Nick Waipara and others from Regional Council visit the Gadgil site from Great Barrier and knew it was regenerating. YES. So they knew it wasn't a new disease and they new it didn't cause forest collapse. YES. Is there docuemntation that supports this. Like a site visit report. YES. When Council did soil tests in 2017 and 2021 was the pathogen under the dieback trees mostly PA, NO. Does this mean that it fails Kochs Postulate of Causation. YES!. Wikipedia is a place for people to put up the facts. The facts are verified. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gadgil first discovered and reported on the fungus - Agathadicida (then called Hevae) in 1971. Here is his letter to the editor. Dr Gadgil, "Let us be quite clear. The fungus now known as Phytophthora ‘taxon Agathis’ is the same species identified as Phytophthora heveae from Great Barrier Island in 1974. It is not a recent introduction. It is not a rapidly spreading virulent pathogen. A survey of the original disease site on Great Barrier Island in 2007 showed that the diseased area now occupied ca. 10 ha (Beever et al. 2009). The fungus was already present in the adjacent area in 1972, so the extension of the diseased area does not indicate spread of the fungus." "Its detection in the Waitakere Ranges (and more recently, in Trounson Kauri Park) is unlikely to represent recent introductions. Although most likely to have been present, it was not detected before because environmental conditions were not suitable for it to have caused serious damage."

What we now know also know is that Genetic Testing further proves Gadgil's assertion that it is not newly introduced or spread by footwear due to the genetic variability in each location. We also know that the people who claimed to be scientists and promoted Kauri Dieback have also submitted to parliament (publicly) that they have formed a trust and would like to be paid to manage the Waitakere Ranges. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With your talk of fraud and illegal claims, you appear to be on the borderline of making legal threats. Please read WP:No legal threats. Continuing on this path will get you quickly blocked.-gadfium 03:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I withdraw my claim of scientific fraud. I stand by the claim that it was false. And that they had visited the site and they knew it wasn't a new disease. That is consistent with the claims made by Dr Gadgil in the link provided.

"There has been considerable publicity recently about a “new” fungus* (see note) that is associated with the death of kauri (Agathis australis) in Auckland and Northland. There have even been suggestions that the survival of kauri is at stake. Reports in the media and in information items produced by the Auckland Regional Council (see www.kauridieback.co.nz) give a clear impression that a virulent pathogenic fungus has been recently introduced and that it is spreading rapidly. The fungus is not new. It was first found in New Zealand in 1972 by scientists from the Forest Research Institute (now trading as ‘Scion’) in a small patch (ca 1.5 ha) of dying kauri saplings and rickers on Great Barrier Island. Isolations made from basal cankers and soil from the diseased area and from soil in two healthy areas (one adjacent to the diseased area and another 4 km away) consistently yielded a species of Phytophthora which was identified as Phytophthora heveae by the Commonwealth Mycological Institute"

Why they suppressed Gadgils work, and the 1971 date to promote the idea that it was new and virulent is unclear. As per Gadgils article link provided they most certainly knew of Gadgils work. In fact Gadgil provided his original pathogen to them for comparison.. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block from Kauri dieback

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, as you did at [[:Kauri dieback]].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. gadfium 04:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FeijoaSalsa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

all my edits were genuine and backed by science and fully referenced. The facts put on the page originally were verifiably false and put their by a political operative who has a pr lobbying firm. Kauri dieback is not a new pathogen and was not discovered in 2009. She lead a false campaign. Changing the name of the pathogen. And closing the waitakere ranges. She has since submitted to parliament that her "trust" should be paid to manage the ranges. There is significant controversy over the original person who created this clearly political page. The science is clear. It was discovered by Gadgil in 1971. And the activists lied about it and said it was a new disease. They knew about Gadgil site as they visited it and reported on it in 2008. The blocker claims to be a scientist but has not addressed any of the facts or scientific claims just makes partisan political blocks and edits.

Decline reason:

Trying to impose your will after failing to gain consensus to do so is disruptive and you were correctly blocked from the article at issue(and only that article). Accusations of a political consipacy are serious, and serious accusations require serious evidence which you can address to the COI noticeboard if you have it(being mindful of WP:OUTING). You may still attempt to discuss your concerns on the article talk page to gain consensus. I see no reason to remove the partial block at this time, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have extended your block to include Agathis australis as you are pushing the same agenda there.-Gadfium (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have continued to push your view at Mokoroa Falls, I have made the block sitewide. If you have any interest in contributing to Wikipedia other than to claim a scientific conspiracy, you know how to request an unblock.-Gadfium (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not untrue though is it Gadifium. As you continue to push the propoganda from the Known liars Mels Barton and Nick Waipara. Kauri Dieback was not new. They lied. They should be convicted of scientific fraud. Thank you. Gadfium you paid agent of the govt. FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]