Talk:Tree shaping

Naming of art form

The place to have a discussion about this subject is here rather than in the article. There is clearly no consensus on this subject and a section with the above title was, quite rightly in my opinion, removed from the article. If left, such a section would quickly become an unseemly battleground to the detriment of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Slowart (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I also think the section "Alternative names" should be either removed or extensively rewritten. Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cloincbn, please read [1] talks about creating a separate section when there are more than two alternative names. Blackash have a chat 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Martian it was not a discussion, it was cited text.

Disagree, Slowart’s removal of cited material is the wrong response. Either Martin or Colincbn should have replaced the section. Then pointed out to Slowart "verifiability, not truth” in WP:SOURCE, then further pointed out if Slowart felt the section naming of art form was unfairly representing one view, he should add the alternative view/s with citations. Please read WP:YESPOV. Please replace the section naming of art form and the text as I wrote it. Then add content of other views from reliable sources and in context to the original source/s. I believe my history shows that I am more than willing to discuss anything I disagree with. Blackash have a chat 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree you have been willing to discuss any issues that have come up. In this case It is less about sources than it is about writing in an encyclopedic style. If there are refs that can be used to show there is a dispute about the name that is fine. But they must be added carefully to avoid POV and to be in a style appropriate to the encyclopedia. Colincbn (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn this section was not about a dispute rather it was about the fact that no name has emerged for the art form. Mainly due to the fact there are not many people who create art with trees in this way. Those who do have named their own art or methods. The only person to use their own name for other's work was Richard and this was mentioned in this context. I also added about the first time a significant group got together as I thought it would be of interest to the reader.

Colincbn, please replace the naming of art form section. I believe if I did so, this edit would later be misrepresented to new uninvolved editors. I would appreciated it if then you, Slowart or Martin let me know which part of this section is not in the encyclopedic style and I post the reference quote and then could you (Colincbn) help me reword the sentence so that it is more encyclopedic. Blackash have a chat 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. First I would suggest that if we are to put a section like this in than we should combine it with the "Alternative names" section. There is really no need to have two sections about what is essentially the same thing. I also think we should trim some of the references down. Especially the ones attached to the arborsculpture entry. I understand why they were added and I sympathise, however we cite sources to show that what we are writing is verifiable and reliable, not to "prove a point". I think any more than three is unnecessary and two is most likely sufficient. I don't think we should put any "so and so thinks name A is stupid and so and so thinks name B is stupid" bits either. I think we can all agree that will simply lead to bad blood and an inevitable degrading down to mud slinging. We can say who uses what names and even why, keeping in mind that our role is not to judge and that we should give an appropriate level of "weight" to each name. I can give more time to this on Sunday or Monday (Japan time); tomorrow I am leading a tour to Nara and won't have much time to spend on it. Colincbn (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph would work combined into the Alternative names section. Most of it could be at the start of that section. Yes, you are right (to save a blood letting) about removing "Ivan Hicks seems to feel the word arborsculpture is unwieldy to pronounce." from the paragraph. I agree the refs should be trimmed down. I don't really have any time until Tuesday Australian time zone either. Thanks for pointing out where the problem was. Blackash have a chat 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please add this text "Through out history there has been so few practitioners of this art-form, that there is no standard name. Every artist has a different name for their techniques. "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture." The first gathering of "accomplished tree shapers" took place at the World Expo 2005 Japan in the Growing Village pavillion." into the section Alternative names. Blackash have a chat 05:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I reworded it a bit? I can put up my suggestion in a few hours (I'm still at work). Colincbn (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I put up my suggestion after rewording to avoid things that I thought might be contentious. I am also moving some refs here so they don't get lost after I trim them. I have also taken out the pleaching entry as I think it is less a name for this art and more a technique used in it. Also it is covered elswhere in the article with links to its own page.

• Arborsculpture
• pleaching

Colincbn (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can add the bit about the Aichi Expo with a good reference too. Colincbn (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put pleaching back as it is used as an alternative name as well, as being a technique used by some. Words can and do have more than one definition. I've also added some refs. This list was alphabetical, and Duff was very particular about the references, so I've added fact to the new additions and put the list back into alphabetical order.

Colincbn, I've changed the text. This is not about the artists agreeing to a name. It is about the cited fact that there is no standard name, every artist has a name for their art, Yet "Richard calls the whole art form arborsculpture". (This has many cites available). Blackash have a chat 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackash, Where can I find this ref ? McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times.Can you quote the text that supports your addition ?Slowart (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart which point do you want clarified as it is quite a lengthy newspaper article. I may take a couple of days to get back to you, once you've answered. Blackash have a chat 21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to read the part that you feel justifies the inclusion of Throughout the course of this art-form's development there have been many names used to describe it. With there being so few practitioners, each with their own name for their techniques, the result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge. It's not written very well and I don't think it's fact. Slowart (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart there are quite a few different points.

1.Throughout the course of this art-form's development there have been many names used to describe it.

This was Colincbn contribution, I agree with Colincbn as did you in your first book How to grow a chair page 14 quote "...all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping..." So that can stay.

2.Few practitioners

The was not cited but I didn't think you or anyone would disagree. I believe you talk about rare nature of this art form is in your 2nd book Arborsculpture. As you know John Garthright traveled the world to find as many practitioners as he could for the world expo. In your 2nd book you list only 6 people as being accomplished tree shapers at the world expo. I really don't think this is a point of contention.

3.Practitioners having their own name

This is cited and I'll give the quote in a few days if this is the point your don't believe.

4.There isn't a standard name for the art form.

This is cited from the same article as above, and also has other cites available example Tricks with trees quote ""It hasn't got a name" published 2007 Blackash have a chat 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3, is a half truth as many practisoner uses the word arborsculpture. 4 is a conclusion based on the book Tricks with Trees quote ""It hasn't got a name" that is followed by... "Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture." published 2007 written by Ivan Hicks. Here is an[excellent reference] that shows a standard name has emerged, at least in the world of horticulture, at university level as this link shows. Many of the ref's for arborsculpture, on the List of potential title names page also show a standard name has emerged. Slowart (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It is not about the word arborsculpture. The reference is about the fact that all practitioners have their own name they use. As you know no artist uses the word Arborsculptuure in regards to their own work including Nirandr Boonnetr. We have two articles here, about him in the Sunday mail and they use his name living furniture for the art form.

4. It is not the only cite that there is not a standard name. Let's look at the full quote, " It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."

The use of a word or words in an article doesn't prove that it is the standard name. Most of the refs you are pointing to are about you or your book big surprise they use your suggested name. Blackash have a chat 03:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Slowart/Reames please don't removed cite text just because you don't like it. Blackash have a chat 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding cited text that is not neutral, or try's to make your contentious point by using a citations is WP:TE tendentious editing. I returned the text to the last version created by Colincbn. Slowart (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What is my contentious point? Blackash have a chat 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you just let neutral editors decide on the text ? Your writing on the main page about the name of this art has not been neutral. The enormous size of this talk page revolves around the name issue. I'm not the first editor to ask you to please give it a rest. Slowart (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the name issue, rather it is the Arborsculpture issue that has filled up the talk pages here. Also multiple editors have stated that it is ok for me to be editing the Tree shaping article. Blackash have a chat 02:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

"Throughout the history of this art-form there have been various names used to describe it. There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their techniques. The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge.[60] Though Richard Reames calls the whole art form arborsculpture.[12]:14 [46] :120 The following names are the most commonly encountered:"

The above passage should be removed entirely. It is bias original research. I agree with Blue Rasberry below. Is there any more support for it's removal ? Slowart (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Tree_shaping#Alternative_names and Tree_shaping#Artistic_controversy need to be deleted entirely because these sections are a reflection of Wikipedia arguing and are without meaningful citations which show that this is a debate in the field. The citations which are there help to set an argument, but not to prove that one already exists. Blue Rasberry 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Slowart you are being a little bit naughty, you know Blue Rasberry wasn't commenting on the above paragraph. Blue Rasberry's comment relates to Duff's edition of un-cited text in this diff, which I removed as I agreed with Blue Rasberry in this instance diff. The above paragraph is cited text not original research.

Slowart, the appropriate thing to do is to go to NPOV noticeboard and ask for outside editor's to comment and link to this section. Though this time please state who you are, and don't misrepresent other editors comments. Blackash have a chat 01:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you share the text of the citation (60) that supports the statement ? Slowart (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation 60 is irrelevant to me because I do not accept the premise that the naming issue merits space in the article. This is what I was proposing in my statement here. Blue Rasberry 16:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry it is not appropriate to dismiss cited text.WP:V It is not about what you think is irrelevant. It is about what people can check in the references as to what has been published. I think there are a couple of relevant factors that you are not taking into account (I'm guessing it's mainly because you don't know them) as to whether or not the naming issue merits space.

1. There are only approximately 25 people in the world who practice this art form and have something to show, and that's including deceased practitioners like John Krubsack and Axel Erlandson. Each practitioner has a different method and name. As yet there is no standard anything.
2. Out of the 4 books published in English about this art form and it's practitioners, 3 of the books talk about the naming of the art-form also other media talks about the naming issue eg. newspapers and magazines. So on this basis the Alternative names needs to go back in.

• There also was a rare point of consensus to create the Alternative names section and remove all the Alternative names from the lead. One of the editors who had previously agreed, later put only arborsculpture back into the lead. If you believe the alternative names have too much prominence, maybe removing them from the lead would give less weight to them. Blackash have a chat 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) Here are 4 quotes about the naming issue for the art form that you are already aware of.

Book How to grow a chair by Richard Reames

• Quote "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia - all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier. Tree trunk topiary is unlike all other techniques. And so it needs a term like no other. I call it Arborsculpture."

Book Arborsculpture by Richard Reames

• Quote "When I first started researching this art form, it was apparent that there was no single word to describe it and set it apart the other forms of art using live trees. I felt that this art form had advanced far enough to deserve its own unique word. With the publication of my first book How to Grow a chair, I coined the word "arborsculpture"
• Quote "The word "pleaching" is used by some as a substitute for arborsculpture,..."

Book Tricks with Trees by Ivan Hicks and Richard Rosenfeld

• Quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better."

ref [60] Newspaper article in the Free Times by Fred McKie

• Quote "There is no standard name for the concept either. Though the Cooks call their work Pooktre - derived from his nickname "Pook" and "tree" - everyone involved has a different name for what they do. It has been suggested by an American that the artform should be called "arborsculpture" though Mr Cook is sticking with Pooktre and has stated that the world will ultimately decide. Blackash have a chat 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to the strongest possible terms to the continued page protecting by Blackash, who should read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I also object to the removal the word arborsculpture because it not the current title, thats a new one. Slowart (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting up cited text, that is a view shared by most of the books published (in english) is not page protecting and being willing to discuss my views and give quotes is not creating a battleground. Blackash have a chat 22:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll (Mediation)

I would like to run a simple poll to see if the editors here are willing to take this issue to mediation. Note: I have noticed that the Mediation Cabal tends to reffer issues to ArbCom if any involved editors refuse or oppose mediation. If you do oppose by all means state you do, but I also request you give your reasons (of course this request not binding in any way). Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think the editors here are all well intentioned and the lack of disruptive editing or any kind of edit wars here lead me to belive mediation could lead to a quick and satisfactory resolution for all sides of the dispute. Colincbn (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can see your an optimist. :) Slowart (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I dropped by here to see how matters were getting along, and am saddened (but not entirely surprised) that there is still an ongoing dispute over the use of the terms arborsculpture and tree shaping. Various editors have offered Third opinions, advice, assistance and informal mediation on this matter. I mediated for quite some time. So that route has already been explored. It appears that whatever decision is made regarding the use of arborsculpture and tree shaping, one party will object, therefore informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate - it would simply be perpetuating the existing problem. You may try stepping up to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - that is accepted as the next stage in a dispute resolution. The Committee is a more formal mediation body. if people are serious about solving this dispute, then use Mediation Committee rather than Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *^YES! 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I Support SlikTork’s idea about going to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, though I really believe we should be trying to improve the article, but Colincbn, Martin, Slowart/Reames seem to feel they can’t move forward with the article until the use of Tree shaping/Arborsculpture is sorted out. If that is what is going to be mediated on, then yes I’ll support discussing the usage of Tree shaping/Arborsuclpture. Blackash have a chat 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons we feel this way is that if we expand the article the expansion will be used, as it has already, as a reason not to change the name to something more appropriate. And for the record I do not think Arborsculpture is the best name for the article. I think a descriptive phrase is better for now. But this is not the place to discuss that issue. I am glad you support mediation and I am perfectly willing to take this to the Mediation Committee instead of the Cabal if others feel that is the best route forward. Colincbn (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Committee... agree Slowart (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support mediation, But first, the section at Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names#Arborsculpture should be properly filled out (it is currently noticeably empty), so that anyone mediating has all the available facts to work with. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Committee... agree But I feel there should be no pre-set conditions as stated above by Quiddity. If anyone ( Slowart or Quiddity) feels this should be done then go ahead and do it.I am talking about the List of potential names# Arborsculpture. I feel that it would be a waste of time as Arborsculpture is a marketing funnel, is not neutral, is controversial and we have already been there. If the name is to be changed it should be "Tree training" as this meets all the policies as we have been discussing recently.The majority of editors have agreed to this at certain stages of the discussion.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think silktork has said it right. The naming discussion is not going to be resolved through the mediation cabal because it is a weak form of mediation and, whatever the outcome, one side or the other is not going to accept it. The naming discussion has gone on fruitlessly for an excessively long time and, since it appears that even the alternative names suggested by colincbn are not getting sufficient traction, the mediation committee may be the only way to go. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When is this going to the Mediation Committee? Blackash have a chat 05:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we have enough support for it, although I would have liked to hear from AfD Hero. I will put together a proposal tonight once I get home. Colincbn (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am writing up the request now. But I think I will wait to post it tomorrow morning. It has a pretty specific format and I don't want to mess it up because I'm tired (I forgot I had a sign language class after work, in Japanese). Colincbn (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Going to the mediation committee is fine with me. Support. AfD hero (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems Colincbn may to too busy to start the process. I'll leave a comment on his talk page, but if he is too busy does someone else want to step up and start the process? I would be willing to do so but not until next week. Blackash have a chat 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the requirements needed to approach the mediation committee, I think anyone who had not read the entire talk page archive could not do a good job. I think the place for this much too long running WP:TE and WP:Game really belongs with the WP:Arbitration Committee Slowart (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom tend to only get involved when people are doing "bad behavior", but do not intervene in editing questions such as what name to choose unless there are exceptional circumstances. Usually what happens is that you go to the mediation committee to get a ruling on the editing question, then some editors on the side that "lost" get angry, don't follow the decision, or generally act out. If there are only a few of them and they don't have "backup", then some random admin will ban them. If there are a lot of editors acting out and they do have "backup" (eg, friendly admins or influential editors), then instead the case goes to arbcom who generally, after much deliberation and rulings, bans them. Arbcom then also issues a poorly thought-out ruling that is bound to be taken way out of context in unrelated situations on other articles. AfD hero (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assesment. Anyway I'd like to know if Colincbn is addressing the Mediation Committee ? FYI, a preponderance of reliable sources for arborsculpture can now be found @ Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names#Arborsculpture the best of lot, IMO being, [#16],[#10],[#8], many specifically label Axel Erlandson's work as arborsculpture. All the others are pretty good except #11, a press release by American friends of Tel Aviv University. Slowart (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've listed with the Mediation Committee here but only put up Slowart and myself as we seem to be the core editors in disagreement, and being the editors involved from the beginning about the usage of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash have a chat 12:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that was interesting.. AfD hero (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Roots

As a diversion from the endless conflict here, you guys may wish to take a look at Root trainer which is a device used for a particular form of tree shaping. It's at AFD where your opinion is welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting I haven't heard of this before, I will look into it tomorrow and comment on the AFD. But it does sound legitimate and maybe just needs some good refs. Blackash have a chat 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Name argument restarted

I see Blackash and Bluegum have re-started the name argument by removing the name arborsculpture from the lead, quoting WP policy. The policy actually says this 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph'. Will some one else please revert this renewed attempt to push one name over another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• When quoting WP policy please link to the page. Is this the section you are quoting? Please note where I have bolded the text from WP:LEAD section in first sentence In articles about places, people, literary and artistic works, scientific principles and concepts, and other subjects, the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus.
• I didn't start the naming argument: though I did agree with Sydney Bluegum that there should be no alternative names in the lead. This follows WP:LEAD Quote "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line". Please note this follows your quote on the WP:LEAD page.
• There also was a rare point of consensus to create the Alternative names section and remove all the alternative names from the lead. Please read the Archives 5,6,7.
• Why did you think it about arborsculpture? I have always stated I preferred no alternative names in the lead, even when they where talking about putting up pooktre as an alternative name. For me it makes sense to have the alternative names section and leave them out of the lead.
• Since you seem to think this is about Arborsculpture please take this to the WP:Arbitration_CommitteeBlackash have a chat 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) has reverted the lead. He has a WP:COI and I've reverted his edit. Going by his edit comment he clearly thinks this is about his word Arborsculpture. I take this to WP:Arbitration_Committee Please don't change again. Blackash have a chat 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In the long term, stridency never wins on Wikipedia, and "please don't change again" is weak reasoning. The vigor with which a couple of editors are seeking to minimize mention of "arborsculpture" shows that some strong principles are involved. Are those principles being applied by the editors in other articles, or is there something about this article and this terminology that is a special interest to them? Since ArbCom are not at all involved in this issue, it would not be appropriate to suggest that "don't change again" has any basis. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq

• Excuse me? Asking a COI editor not to revert an edit again, when I have already made my case on the talk page to which they don't choose to rebut, is not unreasonable.
• Why are you focusing on Aborsculpture? There were 3 different names removed out of the lead.
• You don't seem too worried by consensus now.
• As I pointed out above I don't think any Alternative names should be in the lead and not having them in the lead does follows WP:LEAD, as detailed above in my comment.
• Arborsculpture has been to taken to WP:Arbitration_Committee once before but was closed with out any ruling. I stated that if Arborsculpture became an issue again I would take it to WP:Arbitration_Committee which I have started to do.
• Please discuss the points I made above as you didn't address one of them. Blackash have a chat 09:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, please feel free to move this dispute onto Arbcom, where your continued and long term attempts to promote your own business at the expense of others will become apparent. First you will need to exhaust all other means of dispute resolution such as RfC and formal mediation. The sooner you get started on this route the better as far as I am concerned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Martin how does stating that I don't believe there should be any Alternative names in lead including the name Pooktre (the name of my art) promote my name? Martin please feel free to discuss any of my points above as you haven't yet.Blackash have a chat 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Martin,

• Looking though the history look what I found. Here is a diff in late January 2009 where I removed the Alternative names from the lead. Oh look I removed Arborsculpture and Living Art but wait I also removed Pooktre.
• Please note that the other 20 editors over a year period didn't feel the need to put the Alternative names back in the lead.
• By the way I have twice asked for the article Pooktre to be deleted. The original article was created by me titled Pooktre. I requested for deletion once it was pointed out to me it didn't meet Wikipedia standards. The 2nd time Pooktre article was created by Griseum and as it still didn't meet the Wikipedia standards. I filed the article for deletion. How is this promoting Pooktre over the interests of others? Blackash have a chat 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• What can be seen is that there has been a protracted campaign to minimize use of "arborscultpure" in this article. Why? Are the editors involved concerned that use of "arborscultpure" contravenes the principles of Wikipedia? One way to evaluate that is to ask whether similar concerns have been expressed regarding articles on other topics, or is the activity focused on this single issue? Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq,

• Why are you insisting that my support for the removal of the 3 names out of the lead is about Arborsculpture? My history shows I don't think any of the alternative names should be in the lead.
• How about answering my points above?

Blackash, if you want to be seen as fair and reasonable and avoiding a COI you should completely avoid editing or commenting on anything to do with article or subject name and allow only editors who have no commercial interest in the subject to deal with these issues. Instead what we see is, as Johnuniq says, is a long term and sustained campaign of involvement with this aspect of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've listed with the mediation here.

I'm willing to discuss the removal of the 3 names, but please address my points on this issue above. Blackash have a chat 11:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, let us hope the mediators act to remove any potential COIs from this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)