User talk:Blackash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:44, 27 June 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Blackash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please explain

Hi, Blackash. I've never edited that page before. If you're refrring to this edit, then you want to speak with User:His Wikiness. – Clockwork Soul 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre

Hi Blackash. I think what you are doing is interesting, it just doesn't warrant an article on its own, as there isn't that much information available. A redirect to Arborsculpture plus a section describing groups/individuals practicing Arborsculpture in different forms/innovations/etc. would be more suitable. Thanks for your positive attitude so far, people 'pushing' their own stuff are usually a lot less open towards criticism. Rror (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Shaping

I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits Thanks for improving the article. It's always nice to have someone with first hand knowledge of the subject doing editing on an article. Now, the reason why I'm posting here is that there are a few style issues with some of your edits. I will try explain edit by edit:

[1]

The purpose of the lead image is to show the subject of the article, which is why originally the chair tree image was captioned: "A tree sculpture and artist Peter Cook". The key part of the caption being "tree sculpture", because that is the subject of the article. Changing it to "A tree shaper and artist Peter Cook" makes it about the artist rather than the art piece.

Recommendation: "Artist Peter Cook sitting on a tree sculpture"

[2]

Next we have the issue of the word "arbosculpture". Now I know you don't consider Arbosculpture to describe all tree shaping, but there are some people that do. In order to be a fair encyclopedia, we have to explain both sides of the issue. The original quote is "The word Arborsculpture is used both to describe tree shaping in general, as well a particular style of tree sculpture.", which is a true statement about how the word is used. Some people use it to describe all tree shaping, and others like yourself use it to describe a certain sub-style. We even talk about this later on in the paragraph.

The current edit removes the first part of the sentence, and reads "The word Arborsculpture is used for a particular style of tree shaping". This presents your point of view, but in wikipedia we have to present a Neutral Point of View. That means we say each side, mention the controversy, and leave it at that.

Recommendation: Some artists such as Reames use the word Arborsculpture to describe tree shaping in general, whereas other artists like ARTISTNAME use the term to refer to a particular style of tree sculpture." ... "Controversy exists about the branding of Arborsculpture as some of the practitioners Reames presents in his book ("Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet") don't accept the term, or agree to be tagged by it, whereas others do".

[3]

In a couple places like this, the sentence directly tells the reader to do something. Here it reads: "With the Pooktre's methods it can take as little as one season of guiding the trees growth to form the design eg: The harvested mirror above. Then wait for the tree to thicken to the desired size. " Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a manual or guidebook. There is a difference - an encyclopedia explains what something is, whereas a manual explains how to do something. Therefore it's a good idea to avoid directly addressing the reader and telling them what to do, like in the last sentence of the quote.

Recommendation: "With the Pooktre's methods it can take as little as one season of guiding the trees growth to form the design, and then longer for the tree to thicken to the desired size. For example, see the harvested mirror above. "

[4]

"If this is true, it should never be underestimated just how much John had achieved with this example." This sentence is purely opinion, which should be avoided. Statements in wikipedia have to be verifiable. There's no way to verify that statement, because its just an opinion. Now, if an art critic said that sentence, then we could say "according to art critic mr. smith, it should never be underestimated that ...", because the fact mr. smith said it is a statement of fact. However, you can't just insert your own opinions into the articles.

Recommendation: remove the sentence.

Ok, so I hope that helps. I'll make these changes to the article sometime later today (got to run right now), but feel free to make them yourself in the meantime if you want. AfD hero (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on the talk page of the article. Also, I can't be sure, but it seems to me that Pooktre is the name a private company gave to a pre-existing artform. Someone should look into that. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend using the most neutral name possible. Another possible solution is to pick a neutral basename and redirect all the other names people thought of over the years (assuming said names are verifiably used by a significant amount of people in reliable sources). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Person-tree.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Person-tree.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment splitting

Please don't split people's comments as you did in this edit. You took someone's comment and added your own text in between, making it difficult to determine who said what. Also, new comments go down at the bottom, not immediately after the previous comment. This helps to maintain chronological order, and to maintain a natural flow. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with your comment splitting, as you did in this edit of mine, as one recent example of several other recent examples on the same talkpage. Please respect other editors' ability to make sense of everyone's comments in the proper order. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:Bodger=

Cool. Look, I'm more than happy for other people to edit me, or articles I contribute to- I won't get all precious like some wikinerds. A Good Day to you Sir or Ma'am.TaStarstylers (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping WP:COI

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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.. A conversation about this issue has been initiated at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be a real person and sign inBlackash (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a real person (not the first either) and here is another one: You are affiliated with most of the people, places, and things you have edited about on Wikipedia. You have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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.

Finally, please stop editing at both the article and talk pages at Tree shaping, arboriculture, and all related articles, including your repeated efforts both on and off-wiki to both initiate and inappropriately influence debate on the many issues surrounding these pages. You have a clearly established COI and have proven yourself/yourselves repeatedly unable to to contribute from a NPOV. Duff (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A polite appeal

If you take the time to read WP:COI you should clearly see it's time for you to step away from the tree shaping article. Wikipedia is a community garden with rules. When someone enters and starts planting and pruning without consideration for what's in place, the message sent is "I don't care about this garden. I don't care about this community. I have an agenda and tough luck for everyone else." Don't be that guy. Be a good person and show respect for the policies (such as the WP:COI policy) that 1,000s of people have worked together to form over years of collaboration. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks

Hi. Per WP:WATERMARK we don't use watermarks in images here. Could you upload an unmarked copy of File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg? Otherwise the current image will just be cropped to remove the lettering. Much thanks. And nice stool, if that is yours :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a nice stool, but it not one of ours I put it up with Dr Chris Cattle permission. It may take a few days to replace it with a unmarked image. I will work on it. Blackash (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped a couple of images you uploaded to remove the watermarks. Smartse (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research about Tree shaping

Hi, Just wondering how your research is going. Blackash have a chat 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done it. I will get onto it now. Thanks for the reminder. SilkTork *^YES! 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-orphan attempts

Hey there, I noticed you've been attempting to de-orphan articles, this is great, keep it up. I just wanted to give you a tip: You should not be removing the |date= parameter when adding the |att= parameter. The date of the orphan tag and the date of the de-orphan attempt are two separate things! Instead of replacing |date= with |att= it should be placed in addition to it. This way, the date the orphan tag was first placed on the article remains (and is visible on the face of template when viewing the article), and is distinct from the date that the de-orphan attempt was made. See [5] for an example. Other than that, I'm happy and glad to see that other people are out there de-orphaning articles (I thought I was the only one!) :) Regards, œ ^™ 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. don't worry about it being double-categorized because that doesn't happen! Once the att= parameter is used it gets moved to the attempted de-orphan category.. so you're not having to revisit the same article twice when browsing through the monthly orphaned articles category. œ ^™ 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Hi. I suggest that you remove the "font-size" code from your custom signature. Forcing font sizes is poor for general WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and can irritate other users because it makes your username links appear far larger or smaller than surrounding text (depending on how they have their individual browsers/systems set). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blackash have a chat 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture

Hello. Consensus has been reached and you may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. I think that would be appropriate at this juncture. Duff (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox

I was looking at your sandbox, after following the link you put on the Tree shaping talk page, and I noticed some typos. I Don't know how the naming issue is going to work out, but if you don't mind I would be happy to correct any typos I see in your SB in the hopes those sections will eventually make their way into the article. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colincbn, and thanks that be great if you would fix my typos. Blackash have a chat 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through once and changed a few places. I think a section like this covering the different methods used in tree shaping/arborsculpture/whatever it is we are talking about/;-) could be a great addition to the article. Colincbn (talk)

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. Blackash have a chat 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (^_^) I did not even know about this craft two days ago, now I think I might pick it up someday! And as far as the name thing goes I really don't mind what it ends up as, I'm just pointing out what I feel is the most logical interpretation of WP policy. It might be best to have a long name like I mention on the talk page and cover Pooktre and Arborsculpture under that in an equal way. But the "first name wins" clause is a strong argument, however that might mean a separate article for the broader art form is needed and the current one goes to RR's method exclusively. Then someone starts a merge thread or AfD and.... on and on it goes.... Colincbn (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tree shaping discussion

Dear blackash,

It is clear that you are passionate about the subject and want your voice to be heard. However, I would request that you take a short break from talk:tree_shaping and allow other less personally involved editors to continue the discussion. Maybe relax and shape some trees or something. I can't order you to do anything, but please take this into consideration. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a nice person, and I am sure that we would get along great if we met. So it sucks for me to have to say this, but I am seriously considering bringing this up at the conflicts of interest noticeboard. I know it was done once already and lead nowhere. I assure you that with editors like Martin and myself taking notice we will make sure a decisive conclusion is reached. That might lead to you being allowed to continue editing the article, but I think that is unlikely. So please take the advice of AfD Hero and myself and stop trying to influence neutral editors in the discussion. I suggest simply not even looking. I think you have added valuable content to the article, but you have also worked hard to control the article to best suit your commercial interests. I also notice that the vast majority of your edits are solely regarding the tree shaping article, this is also looked down upon as being a "single purpose account". I hope you take this advice and please be assured that it is meant in the utmost of good faith. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn, you should read my reply to AfD hero at his (talk) page, and I did take a short break, at that time and you seem to have a misunderstanding about COI, SilkTork stated it best quote

"Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is frequently misunderstood. Some editors feel that if someone has an interest or association with an article topic that is a conflict of interest. It is not. It may be a "potential" conflict of interest, but we would need the mind police to discover someone's potential intentions, so we look at the actual edits rather than any assumed intention. Most Wikipedia editors have a potential conflict of interest as we tend to work on those articles whose topics connect with us in some manner - we write about the place where we live, the writers, musicians and films we respect and enjoy, our own areas of expertise, which includes our own occupation or academic subject area. We invite experts to write for Wikipedia, and experts in a field may be expected to hold their own biases or personal enthusiasms. However, we also expect from all Wikipedia editors a certain degree of responsibility, and an awareness of our core policies. Mostly, people do conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. Yes, there is some bias - particularly Wikipedia:Systematic bias - but we are aware of that, and we try to deal with it individually and collectively.

Of more importance, relevance and accuracy than trying to second guess someone's intention is to look at the article in question to see if the article is promotional in nature, or biased. When I was involved in the article I felt it was proceeding in a mostly neutral and factual manner - though there was a slight cause for concern over the use of the word "arborsculpture" as that word was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with him and his books. However, examination of the evidence showed that the word was also being used by some sources as a generic term for tree-shaping, so limited and careful use of that word was acceptable. However, caution needs to be applied and a watch kept on Tree shaping and related articles to ensure that there isn't inappropriate over-use of the term.

Other than keeping a weather-eye on the use of the word "arborsculpture" I agree with Quiddity that there is nothing else here that is cause for concern. SilkTork *^YES! 08:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

As most of editors don't have any of the books on the subject it a bit hard for them know what is said in reference and citations.
As most of the article is not about Pooktre there isn't a COI.
I don't edit war, I will call for a truce rather that push my point of view. Which each time resulted the article giving undue weight to one neologism.
How are you going to know when some of the editors will lead you up the garden path?
I not pushing to get Pooktre more noticed that others on the page, if point of fact there are quite a few things incorrect with our section now. Pooktre is not a business it is a word for our art. Blackash have a chat 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the point, you are using WP to influence what the name of your art is considered. You have even linked to the WP article on outside pages as proof of "Arborsculpture" not being the correct name. You also use the term "Tree Shapers" in the name of your business. I am not suggesting a break I am suggesting not editing to influence the name of the article at all. If WP decides to use a name you don't like then you just have to accept it, if they go with what you want then great. But you yourself should have no part in the discussion. Of course that does not mean you should never edit the article. You have added a great deal of good info to the article and I hope you keep doing so. But leave the naming discussion to others. If action is taken against you it will be bad for all of us. Colincbn (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to talk about behavior outside of Wikipedia, I could tell you stuff about Richard Reames that...... anyway we complained to an editor here about Richard's insistence on branding us and they said it doesn't matter, what happens on the internet, as far a Wikipedia was concerned focus on the cite-able content and not the editor.

Go to treeshapers.net have a look around and you will see that we haven't branded other artist's pages on the site with pooktre and the only place treeshapers.net appears in the the address bar example [6] Please remember that I can edit this site however I want and yet all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to my email where happy with pages and any changes they asked for where made. I believe this site is a good demonstration of my neutrality.
Tree shapers is a descriptive term not the name of our business either. If someone had a business registered as Tree shaping I could easily register a separate business as Tree shapers they would not be considered the same word when it comes to business registration.
Finding references and making suggestions for the title makes sense as you guys don't have the books to do with this art form. Blackash have a chat 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to talk about anybody's behavior outside wikipedia, so please keep all of your personal and professionally related comments about your professional rivals, including half-stated innuendos, to yourself. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm I didn't start talking about other's behavior in point of fact I refrained from doing so above, I also notice that you have not made this point to editors talking about my behavior outside of Wikipedia. (Maybe because they agree with you about arborsculpture?)

Your website is your website, and you can indeed say whatever you find appropriate, on it. However you may not link anything in the Tree shaping article or any other articles to your website. That is WP:SPAM, and it won't be tolerated. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked pooktre web site, danladd, Dr Chris Cattle and other's web sites to the tree shaping article in the external links. When an editor came though and pointed out that these links don't meet Wiki policy, I didn't argue to have Pooktre put back in. I did notice that Richard's site about Arborsculpture was removed, and is now back due to your edits. [7]Blackash have a chat 02:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not make accusations that other editors are lying or have lied, as you have repeatedly done to multiple editors, here Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 4#Arborscuplture [sp] at 7:55 pm, 7 February 2010, Sunday (4 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−8), here Talk:Tree shaping#Lead section at 7:03 pm, 29 April 2010, Thursday (1 month, 27 days ago) (UTC−7), here Talk:Tree shaping#User:Blackash at 11:21 am, 23 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−7), and here Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to move to 'Shaping Forming plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items' pending further discussion at 12:43 am, 23 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−7) That is not WP:CIVIL and no editors appreciate it.Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding it is not a problem to make accusations as long you back them up which I do. Blackash have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are consistently POV pushing, as evidenced by your continued insistence, unsupported by any reliable sources or facts whatsoever and over what is now a period of YEARS, that a)arborsculpture is a method, and b) arborsculpture is a neologism and c) arborsculpture leads directly to Reames; this despite having been repeatedly, conclusively, and decisively proven incorrect on all 3 counts, with consensus reached at many points to basically ignore your line of reasoning. Your recent bullying of other editors participating in the naming discussions is a good example of what I am referring to, but examples can be found throughout the archives, dealing with multiple issues. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm interesting spin you put on my discussions on the talk page. Duff you are the one who makes broad sweping sweeping generalisations and when asked for more details will say things like all oh I was mistaken, or "my stupidity manufactured evidence or no reply at all. When I make a point I back it up with links and Wikipedia policy, thus giving other editors the info and not making them except my version. Blackash have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly submitted questionable images, with questionable copyrights, watermarks of your own company, and various other publication problems. You have fought for their continued inclusion beyond what's even reasonable. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once I submitted questionable images without the owner's permission, when he removed them citing copyright, I stated that he was right and I didn't realise he would have a issue about it, and I never tried to put them back. I didn't know about water makes and I have now removed all water marks from our images as requested. Ummm one request for you to put our cleaned images up is hardly a fight. Blackash have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are two people editing under a single username, a fact which you have acknowledged many times in the talkpage and archives of it. This is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia WP:ROLE and I am calling your attention to it again because this too has to stop.Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Becky Northey am the only person who knows the password or uses this account. When Pete and I both agree on a point I'm making, I will use the we. I sometime type straight in (this is usually when I make the most mistakes with spelling and grammar), sometimes I get Pete to check my writing (he usually picks up that I leave ' out and the small words that help sentence makes sense.) I also use dictating software. So are you saying I shouldn't talk to my life partner and I shouldn't get Pete to check my writing? If Pete was editing with his own account you would then be accusing us of trying to overweight the article with Pooktre's point of view. Blackash have a chat 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have conducted and admitted conducting an off-wiki 500-member email list announcement to bring in single-purpose account editors who will support your POV, also strictly prohibited.
You have conducted, have admitted conducting, and continue to conduct an on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the use of the word arborsculpture in any context and instead direct the world to your own website, where your supposedly superior methods to those you purport to be those of another artist, and your still-pending book on the topic, can be pushed. Your sandbox amplifies this approach clearly. I don't know what policy might cover all these activities, but they are distasteful and a completely improper use of Wikipedia to support your own commercial interests. Shame on you both.
You have stated clearly and repeatedly, in effect, that your only objective here is to not be branded by the word arborsculpture. I and other editors have far broader objectives than yours, and you have wasted a LOT of our editing time (and your own).

I, too, am seriously considering bringing these issues up at both the conflicts of interest noticeboard and WP:RFC/USER, at the very least. I intend to pursue the matter through to its resolution, just as, apparently, do Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, and likely several other exhausted editors on the page. Step back now, please. State clearly that you are both doing so, and then do so, and let the rest of us get back to work. Otherwise we are all going to waste a shipload more of valuable editing time pursuing formal resolution, you are going to be delayed even further from completing your book and pursuing your artistic interests, and you will likely be even less pleased with the outcome than you are now. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 ::::::*You are consistently POV pushing, as evidenced by your continued insistence, unsupported by any reliable sources or facts whatsoever and over what is now a period of YEARS, that a)arborsculpture is a method, and b) arborsculpture is a neologism and c) arborsculpture leads directly to Reames; this despite having been repeatedly, conclusively, and decisively proven incorrect on all 3 counts, with consensus reached at many points to basically ignore your line of reasoning.  Your recent bullying of other editors participating in the naming discussions is a good example of what I am referring to, but examples can be found throughout the archives, dealing with multiple issues. [[User:Duff|Duff]] ([[User talk:Duff|talk]]) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::::Ummm interesting spin you put on my discussions on the talk page. Duff you are the one who makes broad sweping sweeping generalisations and when asked for more details will say things like all oh I was mistaken, or "my stupidity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_7#Manufactured_evidence_of_COI manufactured evidence] or no reply at all. When I make a point I back it up with links and Wikipedia policy, thus giving other editors the info and not making them except my version. [[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> 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
-::::::*You have repeatedly submitted questionable images, with questionable copyrights, watermarks of your own company, and various other publication problems.  You have fought for their continued inclusion beyond what's even reasonable
+::::::*You have repeatedly submitted questionable images, with questionable copyrights, watermarks of your own company, and various other publication problems.  You have fought for their continued inclusion beyond what's even reasonable. [[User:Duff|Duff]] ([[User talk:Duff|talk]]) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
-[[User:Duff|Duff]] ([[User talk:Duff|talk]]) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::::Once I submitted questionable images without the owner's permission, when he removed them citing copyright, I stated that he was right and I didn't realise he would have a issue about it, and I never tried to put them back.  I didn't know about water makes and I have now removed all water marks from our images as requested. Ummm one request for you to put our cleaned images up is hardly a fight. [[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> 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
-::::::*You are two people editing under a single username, a fact which you have acknowledged many times in the talkpage and archives of it.  This is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia [[WP:ROLE]] and I am calling your attention to it again because this too has to stop.
+::::::*You are two people editing under a single username, a fact which you have acknowledged many times in the talkpage and archives of it.  This is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia [[WP:ROLE]] and I am calling your attention to it again because this too has to stop.[[User:Duff|Duff]] ([[User talk:Duff|talk]]) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
+::::::::I Becky Northey am the only person who knows the password or uses this account. When Pete and I both agree on a point I'm making, I will use the we. I sometime type straight in (this is usually when I make the most mistakes with spelling and grammar), sometimes I get Pete to check my writing (he usually picks up that I leave ' out and the small words that help sentence makes sense.) I also use dictating software. So are you saying I shouldn't talk to my life partner and I shouldn't get Pete to check my writing? If Pete was editing with his own account you would then be accusing us of trying to overweight the article with Pooktre's point of view. [[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> 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::*You have conducted and admitted conducting an off-wiki 500-member email list announcement to bring in single-purpose account editors who will support your POV, also strictly prohibited.
 ::::::*You have conducted, have admitted conducting, and continue to conduct an on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the use of the word arborsculpture in any context and instead direct the world to your own website, where your supposedly superior methods to those you purport to be those of another artist, and your still-pending book on the topic, can be pushed.  Your sandbox amplifies this approach clearly.  I don't know what policy might cover all these activities, but they are distasteful and a completely improper use of Wikipedia to support your own commercial interests.  Shame on you both.