So to sum up:- 21 of your edits have 12 of your contributing edits not even questioned/contested by me. I've questioned or contested 4 of your edits, which is about a fifth of your edits. Maybe you can now understand why I used such a strong term as lying. I feel part of the problem was you should have address your issues about me to me on my talk page and not on an article talk page. If in future you endeavor not to exaggerate to such large extremes I will endeavor not to use such a strong term as lying about your comments. [[User:Blackash|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:green;">'''Blackash'''</span>]] [[User talk:Blackash|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:purple;">'''have a chat''']]</span> 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
So to sum up:- 21 of your edits have 12 of your contributing edits not even questioned/contested by me. I've questioned or contested 4 of your edits, which is about a fifth of your edits. Maybe you can now understand why I used such a strong term as lying. I feel part of the problem was you should have address your issues about me to me on my talk page and not on an article talk page. If in future you endeavor not to exaggerate to such large extremes I will endeavor not to use such a strong term as lying about your comments. [[User:Blackash|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:green;">'''Blackash'''</span>]] [[User talk:Blackash|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:purple;">'''have a chat''']]</span> 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
::You are a native speaker of English yes? Then I assume you know what the term "I get the feeling " means, yes? So all the math you just did was a giant waste of your, and my, time. No matter how long-winded a reply you make, it does not change the fact that I began my statement by pointing out that what I was about to say was just how I [[emotion|felt]], and therefore not necessarily based on [[mathematics]]. I stand by my statement because it is 100% true, and nothing you say is going to change that. [[User:Colincbn|Colincbn]] ([[User talk:Colincbn#top|talk]]) 08:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your interest in the issue, you may be interested in following this thread. I have put together my take on the attribution issue and am currently waiting for a reply from Clawson, so that we can go back to the Richthofen talk page and figure out a suitable solution together, build a consensus and finally get this over with. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put my proposal here, waiting for ideas and hopefully consensus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the image. (I've been missing the Buddha for some time :-) ). Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
==[reply]
MvR history
Weird indeed. I have no idea what happened, thanks for letting me know. I'm going to delete that contested paragraph, as we seem to still be forming consensus (to which I'd appreciate your input). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at Richthofen talk. Later today, I'm also going to do the archiving, unless you're particularly keen on that job :) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put together a revised version of the proposal and notify you as soon as I'm done. Thanks a lot for your input. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry
Would you be interested in help expanding a series of Anime related articles? I need help from a Japanese speaking person to add material from Japanese sources.
A concern was raised that the articles in question did not have adequate out of universe material such as information on the production or information on the cultural references such as the reception it received. Information on ratings, awards a particular episode received would also be a helpful addition. See: Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes#Moving forward
If you could help perfect just one of the articles, I could use it as a metric for future reference. Of course I would more than welcome any additional help as well.
Thanks for uploading File:NIBB-logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:Nins logo.gif)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Nins logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ► 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can always tag an image like that as {{db-g7}} which puts it into the speedy deletion queue. Skier Dude ► 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted those images you placed in Neocortex. If you look here, they are explicitly stating that a copyright exists on the images they use on the site. You'll have to get them to change that notice before uploading any more images, or get them to send an email to OTRS releasing the images under a proper license. In that case, you would upload them to Commons rather than here. Let me know if you have any questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the info. We can't change the license on our images until they do, otherwise it is a copyright violation. It sounds like you gave them the right info. If they say the images are allowed to be used for free, educational purposes, we can't use them. The free licenses we use allow people to re-purpose the image for whatever they want, including commercial purposes, as long as they provide attribution and don't try to claim copyright. On Commons, if you upload a file, there is a field you can fill in for "Permission". It tells you what to put if permission is pending, and gives you the e-mail address for OTRS. That is just a mailbox where certain people monitor image permissions among other things. So, if they don't want to change the notice on their web site, you can have them send an e-mail to OTRS specifying the proper license. That way, you can upload the images to Commons while you're waiting. Hope that makes sense. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point. I suggest you take it up with the team at AWB, as even if I was to undo my edit the next time anyone else using AWB browsed the page it would simply get changed back again. Also it should be noted in this context the word is clearly being used as an (acceptable) alternate spelling of heterogeneous and not as heterogenous as used in genetics, which actually has a slightly different meaning. Colincbn (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation of Monty Hall problem
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Hi. I really appreciate your trying to solve that problem with the NURBS animation. I answered your question over on Commons but this will be a more complete explanation. In short, the volunteer developers tried to solve a problem with GIFs and how our 120-pixel thumbnails are generated and bit off a bit more than they could chew. All GIFs that, when you multiplied all their frames by their frame size and the resulting product was greater than 12.5 pixels, broke. I was torqued because I take great care to make my animations compact. You can read a lengthier technical explanation here at the user talk page of someone who had a hand in this. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game theoretic Monty Hall problem solution
Hi - Just FYI. I chased down the "offer Monty a reward and the probability of winning by switching is 1/2" bit in the article to this edit made by User:Dean P Foster who is apparently a statistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Economics. I've asked on his talk page for a reference. He's not very active, so if he doesn't respond I'll follow up with an email. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blackash sandbox
Hi Colincbn, and thanks, that would be great if you would fix my typos Blackashhave a chat 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you have definitely improved the flow of text and made it more readable then it was. People are always asking us about the methods of shaping trees. Blackashhave a chat 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
tree shaping discussion
Hi Colincbn, I'm just letting you know I replied on my talk page, to your comment. Blackashhave a chat 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any “wiki-legal” way to re-open the proposal to change the title of the article about arborsculpture to “Arborsculpture” that is exactly what we should so. THIS is the verifiable, written evidence I would have introduced had the debate not closed so quickly. --Griseum (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Colincdn, the discussion that never really happened was, "What if anything other than arborsculpture, should the page be titled? Somehow we would need to go back to the original title, so can we have that discussion. Is that what you'r thinking? Slowart (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation resumes
The mediation of the Monty Hall problem case has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard tries to cut the crap
Hi Colincbn, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arborsculpture naughtiness
I posted again on my page, and also on the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Feeling_lost. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make you happier to post on Wikipedia. If I am unable to meet you respectfully, another offer I can make is to delete what I have written, but I did make my best attempt to engage your arguments thoughtfully. I want you to enjoy the time you spending contributing to Wikipedia. Please be direct in telling me how I can do this, if I should behave differently. Also, I will be away from Wikipedia for a while, so I may not be able to reply quickly. Blue Rasberry 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am respectfully extricating myself from the arborsculpture business, but I was just requested to comment in a passage where someone called someone else naughty. I had nothing to do with this and do not support the use of that word! I want to apologize to you again regarding that discussion we had. You obviously are a thoughtful editor and it is clear to me now that I misunderstood you and that you did nothing wrong. For my part I did not intend to do anything wrong, but I should not have called you "naughty" and you took it badly when I never expected to offend you at all. I am sorry, and I am writing now just to offer closure to all this. Blue Rasberry 16:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yubimoji
Thanks for the nudge! I felt under appreciated, so I sort of slowed down adding the final yubimoji pictures. It takes work, and I started on it years ago and I am almost done, so I should finish up. Last time I looked there were no free license pictures for yubimoji, so thats why I was making my own. And besides, a uniform "same image" look would be best in my opinion. So I'll make it my goal to finish up next time I have a few days off (thats a few days from now!), I can do it! If I don't, feel free to push me more... but I can do it!! haha Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elfquest
Well how cool is that, I always felt that elfquest had a Japanese flavour to the art work. Not sure why maybe the hair or that fact they wear real clothes instead of colored body suits. As to Redlance in a coma are you talking about when the whole tribe goes into wrap stuff to wait out the years in the dream time series? Blackashhave a chat 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose it wasn't really a "coma", but he goes into shock after the fight to protect the children in the go-backs cave during the first series. It's the scene where he tells Nightfall his soulname. I always looked at it as a result of him using his power, which he had always used to help things grow and flourish, as a weapon.
By the way if you do not know already Wendy and Richard Pini put all the Elfquest books online for free here. Just one more reason why they are two of the best people on earth. Colincbn (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I know the scene, I always remember the way Nightfall is holding him and how the blood is running across his nose, it's a powerful drawing. Thanks for the link, I did know about it but glad you pass it on anyway. I plan on doing some editing on the elfquest pages soon, as you pointed out they did need some TLC. Blackashhave a chat 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yo
What are my grammatical errors? I'm just curious.--Wikipedian05 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am traveling right now and have limited access to the web so please give me to Monday (Japan time). But in the meantime let me say the first thing that jumped out at me was the bit I referenced in the SPI: "always removes much information", is really weird to me. I can see how JFK could have just copy-pasted that around afterwards which is one of the main things I saw as a red flag.
On a somewhat separate point, even if those particular accounts are in fact other users it still seems there are multiple users logging in from your PC (or the PC you use the most anyway). If they are other accounts of yours I suggest you list them on the SPI page, add "inactive" tags to them and no longer log in as them. I saw that some of them have edited the same pages and talk pages. This is considered an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. By listing and then no longer using them I hope you can avoid any admin actions against you.
If they are the accounts of other people who simply use the same machine this can still be seen as "Meatpuppetry", which is considered just as bad as sockpuppetry. The best way to avoid sanctions if this is the case is to detail the situation (roommates, same school, or whatever) and then avoid editing the same pages unless you make the situation clear on the pages you all edit. If you do that I think the admins will be more willing to assume good faith. Colincbn (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Home again?
Hello Colincbn, I've read your words: So in my mind the MHP is not at heart a "math problem" but is in fact a "psychology problem". – And that's exactly the way I am feeling, and also some of us, too. Would be great if you could join in again in "Next Steps", would be fine. Kind regards, -- Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help with encyclopedic style
Colincbn, I've replied in Naming of art form and I would like your help with the rewording of that section. I go into more detail on the talk page. Thanks Blackashhave a chat 03:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colincbn, could you please put the text up (about naming of art form), I've added the text to the talk page. I would be happy to add the refs back after you put the text up. Also are you still taking the usage of the term Arborsuclpture to the mediation committee? Blackashhave a chat 05:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colincbn I've noticed you seem to be busy with other things at the moment. I've commented on the talk page asking if anyone else wants to start the process. I could do so but not until next week. If you do have the time please go to the mediation committee about the use of the word arborsculpture. Blackashhave a chat 10:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice RE: Sep. 2010 SPI filing
Hello Colincbn, I just wanted to let you know that an SPI case that you filed in September has now been merged into the casepage of an older puppetmaster (see here). The puppetmaster Dr90s has been active at Wikipedia for some time now and he has proven to have an obnoxiously high rate of recidivism. This being the case, I think it wise to spread the information that this problem editor is known to return to his favorite kinds of articles again and again under new sockpuppets. I feel that the more editors that are aware of this character the easier he will be to identify and stop in the future. If you have any suspicions regarding this guy in the future, I'd also be glad to give my opinion as I am quite familiar with him by now. Thanks for your help in this matter and please keep this issue in mind. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Reply
Apropos your message , I have this to reply. The rules and policies in place at WP that must be followed should be followed by all users with out any discrimination and not just imposed on one of them in order for the site to function. This is exactly what I explained to Abecedare. It was just and reasonable, but then, why was it rebuked by Abecedare? If he is an Indian , I understand that if he has to retain his position in Wikipedia as an administrator, he has to be subservient which is a sine qua non! I was not appealing the block , but I was contesting it, since I have been accused of causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash with out at all the accusation being substantiated though every thing is logged in Wikipedia! Why was it hard for those deceitful administrators to understand me when I state that the onus is on those who accuse me of causing disruption to establish with evidence that is borne out by records as every thing is logged in Wikipedia? I literally got my fingers burnt in my endeavour to get them to substantiate their allegation! And if you are honest and go through my discussion Page, you will find that I did write a short, simple reflection on “your own actions”, and on “what you can do to help the project along”.
You can show your good faith and bona fides by restricting the block to the article on Hindutash since the block pertains to causing disruption and slow edit-warring at Hindutash till the issue therein is resolved. Now I have been blocked from even editing my own discussion page cantankerously by Toddst1. The ball is in their court. I had explicitly expressed my willingness to coordinate for the purpose of creating an informative and neutral article which was devoid of bias.
I'm not in the habit of taking WP discussions to other venues, but I just wanted to make it clear that I was in no way suggesting that WP:NFCC#8 requires non-free images to be the subject of articles themselves. Just that, because of its wording, its omission would be detrimental to that understanding and in combination with WP:NFCC#1, it effectively requires images themselves to be subjects of discussion/notoriety/controversy/whathaveyou. Because any image that simply illustrates or supports the text would be redundant in the information it provides. To use an image I've uploaded as an example, this photograph was at the center of a controversy because it was one of the very few images, moving or still, that clearly showed Maradona touching the ball with his hand and became a symbol of Argentine defiance in the wake of the Falklands War (though the latter aspect isn't mentioned in the article). There doesn't seem to be any sort of discussion around the image itself, but simply the act of an imperial family member speaking in JSL. And yes, sign language is a visual language that can't be expressed with written text, but you don't need a non-free image to express that. Of course, WP:NFCC#8 tends to be the most contentious of the criteria because it's open-ended and rolls in several policies (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NFCC#1 are implied), so we'll always have disagreements about contextual significance of some images. --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make my response even longer than it needs to be, I think the thing to keep in mind is that WP:NFCC is restrictive and exclusionary by design. It's meant in part to keep the use of non-free content to a minimum, so the bias will inevitably lean towards deletion. --Mosmof (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note in the list of pictures 3, 5, and the last image were created by Axel Erlandson. These images shouldn't be used to represent any of the methods as Axel never told anyone how he trained the trees. This is stated in multiple published sources. Being considered the world leading expert by our peers, IMO Axel's trees are unachievable using Richard Reames's method. Two reasons
We can create any of Axel's trees if we wanted to, so I believe Axel most likely shaped trees using a gradual method.
Richard has been bending trees for 19 years, the bench and the peace sign are his best pieces. Which are no where near the standard of Axel's trees. The reason for this is his shaping method.
So it would not be appropriate to use an artist's trees to represent a method when there is no information on which method they used to create their trees. Blackashhave a chat 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case I would have to agree with you. Colincbn (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Colincbn, I feel like I'm being stalked and defamed. My photo contrabution list containes photos you requested. I assumed you noticed the tree work created by Reames and not confuse it with Erlandson's. My methods over 19 years are not in some kind of box that excludes this "gradual shaping". This tree [[2]]was grown by Reames, as was this tree [3] neither of these trees fit in the category of "Manual Tree shaping". If you would like my help in improving the article or any other article please ask @ my talk page.Slowart (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slowart, we were discussing replacing the image that represents your published method on the tree shaping article. And the last image doesn't state it Axel Erlandson's until you go to image file, so I pointed out which are Axel's trees in the list. So are you stating these two images [4], [5] are not suitable to be used to represent your published method? That ok. Your best pieces are the bench and the peace sign, you have stated this in lots of places for the peace sign and I'm assuming the bench is also because of the prominence you give it in your book, publicity and website. Both of these pieces were created using your published method. The bench photos are 10 years out of date and the peace sign in 6 years out of date, how about taking a photo of either of these pieces now and give that to wikipedia? If you do, I would be willing to remove the background and that could be up as the representation of first method on tree shaping. Blackashhave a chat 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removeal of Cited Content
Hi Colincbn, I've asked you to replace the cited content, I've given my reasoning on the talk page. [6]Blackashhave a chat 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've asked you a question on the tree shaping talk page.Blackashhave a chat 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've rebutted some of your comments on the talk page, in short are you going to put references and cite content back? Blackashhave a chat
Hi, I've comment again. I've also listed on the ANI about the removal of referenced/cited text. Blackashhave a chat 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working towards compromise
Hi, I've made a short comment on my talk. I've also copied your last paragraph of your comment from my talk page to the tree shaping talk page and replied to the content there. Blackashhave a chat 09:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've replied on my talkpage with, Yep you can take that from my comment. Blackashhave a chat 08:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning vandals
Please sign your warnings - this allows to see who (and most importantly when) gave them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaaahhhhghhhh!!!!! There is nothing left but Seppuku for me now.... (This is a joke, I will not be cutting open my belly) Colincbn (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JFD
Please review my edit here. Is there a better way to establish a context for this? --Tenmei (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior
Colincbn, you lied on the tree shaping talk page, there are 3 factual mistakes and you are taking advantage of the fact I’m limiting my comments on articles’ talk page due to the issues raised at my topic banning here and after.
You are well aware that I suggested only replying to any editor, twice on any given issue. (You have actual spoken to other editors about my self-imposed comment limit.) Yet when I asked you to take the discussion to my talk page, you turned around lied, made misleading comments and asked me a question. All to try and engage me on the discussion page. As you know if something is not replied to, it is assumed its because it can’t be rebutted.
You know for a fact that I haven’t contested all your edits on Tree shaping and by you accusing me of doing so, makes me seem unreasonable a specially if I don’t rebut your claims.
If you lie like this again I will revoke my limit on commenting. I’ll ask you again to go to my talk page, if you are really interested what my reply is to your comments and your question. Blackashhave a chat 06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off please assume good faith, in spite of our different opinions there is no reason for you to say I have "lied". The truth is I was not counting your responses and I would have no problem if you responded on the talk page. I have never had a problem with you giving your opinions. Also just because you have decided not to post more than twice does not mean everyone else must. The way I see it your topic ban is enough, if you want to post in talk all day long I wont mind. Of course Martin might but that is for him to decide, if you remember I voted against his proposal for a full topic ban.
The place to have discussions on content is the talk page of the article in question, not your user page. Go ahead and comment there if you have something to say, that's what it is there for.
Also I must admit that I was getting a bit frustrated when I said "every change I make", certainly you have not complained when I simply fixed a typo or whatever. But the heart of my statement still stands. On any change to wording I have made you have objected. If you step back and accept that I am not "out to get you" you will see that all of them have simply been copyedits that improve the flow of the article, or increase the accuracy of statements. I am not trying to push an agenda or any of the other things you and Sydney have accused me of. In fact I reverted when Duff removed the word Pooktre from the lead last week.
And please don't accuse me of lying here again. If this continues I will start an ANI and ask that you be banned from my talk page for harassment. Colincbn (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Colincbn breath deeply. Your efforts on the page are appreciated. It has been awhile since we looked up the references that allowed the word Pooktre in the lead. ALL of them were found to be unreliable sources according to the noticeboard consensus. Please realize the art is NOT refered to as Pooktre any more reliably than the whole art is referred to as Arborsmith or Arborsmithing. Apparently a press release from "friends of tel-aviv university" released a widely circulated and copied piece that included Pooktre as an alternative name for the art, probably due to this long smoldering edit war. Slowart (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowart I hope your are willing to back up your comments about noticeboards with links and diffs, as I seem to remember the discussions quite differently. Also the press release was online quite a while (August 21, 2008) before the article name change (10 January 2009) . Blackashhave a chat
You think Pooktre is the correct name for the whole art? Really? Or just somebody's mistake that your happy to go with? Slowart (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Colincbn maybe you should have taken your own advice about good faith. As to the 2 reply comment I was in no way expecting any other editor to do this. If you had only commented about content I wouldn't have make any reply at all. But you chose to comment about how you think I'm reacting to you and your edits. The right place to bring up this type of comments is the editor's talk page. Unless you are looking for input from other editors and if that is the case I believe wikipedia has steps to follow to do so.
The other thing you did was ask me a question in spite of my comment quote "if you want more clarification please bring it up on my talk page" and with your knowledge about my self imposed limitation, I felt that this was a bit rude. Comment to your hearts content on the talk page but please in future when I state in my comment "for further clarification ask on my talk page" or something along those lines, ask the questions you want to ask me about that issue on my talk.
Let's address your comment quote "How about this: I get the feeling you have determined that every change I make is part of some plot to get the article name changed and therefore fight each and every one regardless of what they are." when I objected you clarify with quote "Also I must admit that I was getting a bit frustrated when I said "every change I make, certainly you have not complained when I simply fixed a typo or whatever. But the heart of my statement still stands. On any change to wording I have made you have objected." As to the "regardless of what they are" this is not true, not even a quarter of your edits have I contest or questioned your changes. The last sentence of the 2nd quote is also factual mistake, in your recent editing there have been multiple edits where I haven't questioned or contested your word changes. Read on for details.
Looking at your edits from 8 March 2011 till your comment on the talk page diff 02:01, 20 April 2011 (this list of edits below is the most recent lot of your edits on tree shaping article) Out of 21 edits I've queried 1 and contested 3.
The three I contested, changing tree to plant [7]diff in discussion the other two contested edits are related as both where about removing Arborsculpture [8]discussion and [9]discussion.
Out of the 17 edits left 12 where not just copy editing, Links
So to sum up:- 21 of your edits have 12 of your contributing edits not even questioned/contested by me. I've questioned or contested 4 of your edits, which is about a fifth of your edits. Maybe you can now understand why I used such a strong term as lying. I feel part of the problem was you should have address your issues about me to me on my talk page and not on an article talk page. If in future you endeavor not to exaggerate to such large extremes I will endeavor not to use such a strong term as lying about your comments. Blackashhave a chat 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a native speaker of English yes? Then I assume you know what the term "I get the feeling " means, yes? So all the math you just did was a giant waste of your, and my, time. No matter how long-winded a reply you make, it does not change the fact that I began my statement by pointing out that what I was about to say was just how I felt, and therefore not necessarily based on mathematics. I stand by my statement because it is 100% true, and nothing you say is going to change that. Colincbn (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated an extended variant of the paragraph including both sources. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birch_2006.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tool_tree_shovel.jpg){kind=link}