Steady on John.
It might have been verified as a Field Blewit, but it's a massive atypical one with obvious lilac tones.
All David and I were trying to say is that if a fungi goes in to the A-Z, it's surely best to have the typical version as the image that people will see and refer to. Any variations should be as a sub-image with notes. In this case, I think it would be unwise to include your variation as it's not mentioned in the basic, or complex literature.
As for why your image appeared in Wood Blewit; Because you put it there along with mine when you said you amended it t'other day (When I went to check if you'd put my image under
L. saeva, it wasn't, it had been put under
L. nuda.)
I appreciate that yours might have been verified but you're a man with a massive knowledge of fungi! Surely you must admit this looks 100% more like a Wood Blewit than a Field Blewit
We're not trying to spite you in any way, just trying to avoid mass confusion when referencing. What would we get out of spiting you? Nothing.