Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Notability and Conflict of interest

First of all, to quote Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

It seems clear to me that at least some editors here are in obvious conflict of interest, whether they admit it or not. Which leads to my second gripe with this article, notability. The techniques and "notable praticioners" sections should be removed, or moved to separate articles. As it is right now, half of the article is about the editors themselves! A single paragraph should be enough to mention them, if at all. Wikipedia is not your personal advertising space. The distinction from other tree-related disciplines could also be shortened. Reducing the scope of the article should greatly reduce the conflicting interests about it's content; it shouldn't be that hard to settle on a generic definition.

Also, please provide thrustworthy, objective sources for your statements. Even if something should/shouldn't be done in a certain way in your opinion, your opinion, to be frank, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I propose that controversial topics be removed or split from this article. That way, we can make a NPOV overview article about the phenomena and move controversy and edit wars elsewhere. 85.226.59.234 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The notable practitioners could be reduced to Erlandson and Krubsack (both dead) I agree the Method section could be removed especially the 2 approaches and styles. I thinks the tools and time required are fairly neutral. I think the photos of the bonsi tools should come out along with several of the practitioner photos. The diffrences section could be removed and rolled into a better introduction that explanes the subject with more disambugation.Slowart (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the sections on Erlandson and Krubsack have the least secondary sources, and therefore the least notability according to wikipedia guidelines. AfD hero (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Erlandson I'm sure has many secondary sources if we look for them, but Krubsack has very few. But on the other hand, looking at Topiary and Bonsai and Espalier I see they do not include any notable practitioners at all. Perhaps that is the way go.Slowart (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable practitioners is in use though out wikipedia.Blackash (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The method section should stay, as people looking for more information are intrested in how it is done. If anything the 2 approaches should be elaborated on. Blackash (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

85.226.59.234 Please sign. [1] Blackash (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref for published patent

I noticed the external link to the patent and followed it up, then changed the wording on arborsculpture. Now having read what I wrote, it might be more appropriate to place the ref after Tree shaping, known under a variety of names, Blackash (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the change, I'm wondering weather the published patent should be in external links now as it is in the refs. Blackash (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC

I've removed the patent in the external links Blackash (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted earlier edits

I have undone the last two edits. The first revert because the older verison has a better flow and is still accurate. The second one had been changed to "Relationship to other plant-shaping arts". This doesn't work with the paragraphs below. In these paragraphs they talk about how each style of shaping is distinct from tree shaping, they don't talk about how they are similar or what their relationship to each other might be. Blackash (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest / article "ownership"

Are espalier or bonsai types of tree shaping or should these crafts be considered each in their own category? On one level this is a matter of semantics and lumping versus splitting, but the undo referred to above -- how quickly this edit was reverted and by who -- concerns me. Without any evidence or citation from academia or a published source, an editor has decided it's similar, but not a type of, and now that is the final word? Wikipedia is a place for neutral parties to organize and explain expert opinions, not for self-appointed experts to force their opinions. The blatant conflict of interest pointed out by previous editors continues to be a problem evidenced by the close shaping and pruning of this article by a few. Looking at this article, I feel like I've read an ad for people's websites. These photos should be edited to exclude text! User talk:Blackash, there are certainly no rules saying you must be editing more than one article, but what you doing implies a sense of article ownership that runs contrary to the spirit and guidelines of Wikipedia. Stepping back and taking one's hands off a project, even when you disagree with how details seem to be being altered, is vital to collaboration and can have unexpectedly positive effects in the long run. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Within the artical editors have treated topiary, espalier, pleaching, and bonsai as their own category, and have done so since [July 2007.] If you look though-out the history there have been quite a few different editors, so there appears to be a consensus they be treated as their own category.Blackash (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the part about "without any evidence or citation" 208.59.93.238 (talk 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)) could also be stated about the changes you made. Blackash (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"The blatant conflict of interest pointed out by previous editors" 208.59.93.238 talk 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)) This inaccurate, the editor who has claimed so, Slowart who had been Reames (He outed himself as Richard Reames, earlier on in the history). Has be repeatedly told he had a conflict of interest. We have had editors state about us quote "the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith". We always endeavour to be signed in when we make changes or alterations.Blackash (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't imply that this is the only article that I work on, as this is not true.Blackash (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have chided you so harshly as to necessitate you going on the defensive, which I certainly did. I apologize for that, as it ignores that you are acting in good faith even if you're not editing entirely appropriately. In the edit you made to revert mine, both sentences have grammar errors, hence my undo. Please look very, very carefully at the text in place now. It's extremely neutral and avoids lump/split nomenclature entirely. I think the time frame is a very helpful point to explain in the intro. If the matter of "differences from" versus "relationship to" is a sticking point for you, go ahead and change it. I'm probably not interested in editing this article further, but hope you'll take time to consider that trying to maintain too tight a control on any one, or few, articles can easily have negative effects. To end on a very positive note, thanks for sharing these amazing tree shaping techniques. I'm very impressed with some of the effects achieved in such short times and look forward to more surprises in coming decades. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As my edited version of your sentence had grammar errors. I replaced the original back has it is neutral and had been checked for grammer.Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence back to "This article discusses tree shaping and it's evolving methods. While also comparing the differences from traditional methods of (including topiary, espalier, pleaching, and bonsai) for shaping of woody plants." that you said had bad grammer, please correct the grammer. Blackash (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

in one::WTF- I find it offensive that you drag my name into this battle, Blackash. I also find it ironic that you selected to share a remark about yourself having good faith, that was made in a AFD discussion about a page you put up all about yourself, where another editor (not me) points out your COI AFD Pooktre Those that know the facts about your relationship to this page know you have a COI. Please explain how this is, as you say, "inaccurate". It is interesting that you are using this wiki page to claim consensus to help you try and stop the use of the word Arborsculpture for the whole art and replace it with Tree Shaping. You have spamed some three hundred different comment box's, whenever the word Arborsculpture sprouts up. [stalking a word?] to me it's kind of creepy to realize the extent of your broader efforts, trying to redefine a word from being used to describe the whole art form into something that only "Richard Reames" does. Who knows your spam may help you or it might backfire.Slowart (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm just read AFD Pooktre No-one said that we had a COI. Please reread. Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange how you keep trying to imply we were responsible for the article being changed from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping. For anyone intrested in how it came about read here. [[2]] Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You did teach us how to follow a word using google. We have commented were people have mistakely branded Arborsculpture across our art. I have pointed people to the wikipedia talk page so they can decide for themselfs. Google Arborsculpture the links lead back to Richard Reames web site. It is clearly a brand of Richard Reames. Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That nastiness aside, the article reads like an add. Hopefully someone with a Wikipedia:NPOV will rethink and rewrite the whole page. IMHO the article need not mention the name any living artist, perhaps that will help. When the page was titled Arborsculpture the "Distinction from other plant-shaping arts" made sense, but when the name was changed to Tree Shaping, that IS de-facto Bonsai and Topiary and Pruning and Arborsculpture. I write this knowing I have a COI. I don't plan on doing any editing on this page unless it is to remove some kind slander. Good luck with all this, I really hope the article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards.Slowart (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

About mentioning different/notable artists this has been discussed [[3]] and if you wish comment again go up the page abit and talk there. Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As I commented earlier "there appears to be a consensus they be treated as their own category". There were several editors checking this article at the time the name was changed, and the following edits. This article now has alot more valuable content than before. Blackash (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Tag

As User:Blackash is a person mentioned in this article, and because this same person is going to great lengths to micromanage its content, the article has been tagged appropriately. It's becoming apparent that User:Blackash is determined not to respect the policies and culture of the Wikipedia community and cares only about manipulating this article for personal and financial advantage. This tag may not be removed by User:Blackash or other parties to whom this tag refers. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We disagree that we have a COI. We have always endeavorered to edit with NPOV and to show good faith. Please point to one of our edits on the Tree shaping article where there is COI and how. Blackash (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So that we are all working from the same page here is 208.59.93.238 opinion taken from with my relpy.

Tree shaping - User:Blackash

User:Blackash is the co-creator of the "Pooktre" techniques given prominence in the Tree shaping article. He is in content added to the article. Despite repeated attempt by various editors to get User:Blackash to respect Wikipedia COI policies, this user continues to use this article to promote himself personally and professionally. This user makes few edits to other articles, and most of these are related to efforts at self-promo, his preference for the term "tree shaping" versus "arborculture", etc. Finally and most damagingly, User:Blackash is extremely resistant to other editors' efforts to improve this article and seems to be making every effort to control and micromanage it's content. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where I should reply, if not please tell me where. Blackash is co-creator of pooktre. In this verision of the page (before 208.59.93.238 started editing) I had added the other practitioners (except for Arborscuplture and Pooktre, I didn't add these) I have actively found references for other artists, I also got permission to put up Dr Chris Cattle image. The placing of the first photo was not done by me. When editing other articles that are related to Tree shaping I will add Tree shaping text, links and images, so as to display Tree shaping in context to the related article. This type of editing I would not class of self-promotion. I endeavoured to always discuss any changes I make or that I object to. I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborculture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been change from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reaching a Consensus

Adding a diagram to help illustrate the process

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.

Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To 208.59.93.238 (talk) for an editor who stated "I'm probably not interested in editing this article further" to then making several edits that changes the overall dynamics of the page. It appears you had an agenda. I will be asking for a third opinion to come in and read what has been happening so that there is a more neutral point of view can come into the editing. Blackash (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Going to Dispute resloution it suggests getting a Editor assistance which may be a better way to go, if we both do this it will improve the article and we will learn alot about the process of improving Wikipedia.Blackash (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Having said that I will go back and make changes and discuss each change with you and any other editor who is interested and try and reach a new consensus. Starting with the minor sentence change. 208.59.93.238 and working through your other changes to see if we can come to a compromise and reach a new consensus. Blackash (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Working though the changes

First I list the ones that don't seem to matter one way or the other 208.59.93.238 by undoing my last edit, chaged the caption under the stick figure. I had shortened it down. I'm guessing you didn't realise. So I will redo that. Blackash (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

208.59.93.238 removed Peter Cook's name from the caption under the photo. I would have thought it was normal practice to name the person in a photo. But fundamentally it doesn't matter. I leave that to other editors to decide. 208.59.93.238 please refrain from making snarky comments try to assume good faith. Blackash (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"section is about shapers then headings should reflect that and should NOT serve this editor'".208.59.93.238 How it it to my befit? My original reasoning for having the individuals name of their art form was to enable people to more easily research any given practitioner and their trees. Google Mr Wu 3,000,000 hits. It be hard to find the right one. Blackash (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The rest I'll work though these as I can. 208.59.93.238 Apart from bad grammar what is your issue with this sentence? Grammar can be fixed. Thou not by me :-) "This article discusses tree shaping and it's evolving methods. While also comparing the differences from traditional methods of (including topiary, espalier, pleaching, and bonsai) for shaping of woody plants." Please discuss this before editing this back again. Blackash (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 96.233.40.199 #1. Please talk here about your objections to my sentence apart from grammar, what is wrong with the content of the sentence? If it's just grammar, fix it please. #2. Having a potential COI is not a reason to ignore my points or revert my edits without discussion. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the original sentence before all this recent editing was the most neutral "Tree shaping is similar to espalier or bonsai and sometimes includes some topiary. " This wording leaves it up to the reader to decide whether Tree shaping is separate, related or the same as the other shaping art forms described. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@208.59.93.238 Please explain why your sentence "This article discusses tree shaping methods developed in the 20th and 21st centuries and its relationship to traditional methods (including topiary, espalier, pleaching, and bonsai) for shaping woody plants. is better than what had been there. I found this "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". This quote is from [4]. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My objections to this sentence are, relationship and the time fame. The article actually discuss the distinctions between other plant shaping types not the relationships. So the wording is a poor fit. As to the timeframe I know that this is inaccurate. I will find the references/citations that I need, and then I will write entire paragraph about these earlier Tree shapers. I will also try to gain permission for the use of the photos. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change the sentence so that relationships is distinctions and leave the timeframe in temporarily until I gain the permissions. Unless someone wants to fix the grammar of my suggested sentence. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bold facing of most popular alternative names is standard wikipedia practice 208.59.93.238 Ok. Reading the reference there are 7 choices. By what criteria did you choose to pick arborsculpture as the alternative word? Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have used google news as quick way to find a name that is most in use. It filters out personal webpages and blogs. Arborsculpture has no hits arborsculpture google news Botanical architecture has 44 hits Botanical architecture I'm going to change arborsculputre to Botanical architecture. Blackash (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The original sentence "Tree shaping, known under a variety of names," was better as it didn't give undue weight to any one name.Blackash (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

When asking for a Citation it is normal practice to give a person more than three days to find the references and added them. Please do not remove this again. Blackash (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackash has a conflict of interest and a demonstrates a sense of ownership

• Blackash has stated openly on Wikipedia that they are a person mentioned by name in this article. They are half of the "Pooktre" team. This person and their partner charge money for their services, and they are in competition with other tree shapers even if a spirit of collaboration rather than competition prevails in the tree shaping community. Although I am disgusted that that this person insists on editing this article despite WP:COI guidelines, I have not categorically rejected their edits. Rather, I have rejected edits based upon specific points of contention. For example, when it comes to matters of word choice versus content, I reject edits which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language. I also reject Blackash's attempts to categorize "arborsculpture" as the specific term for the work of one person -- Richard Reames -- noting that Reames himself considers "arborsculpture" a term for the practice in generally and not a term for his own work specifically. Blackash is more or less a single use account, and the attempt to micromanage this article is essentially their only involvment with Wikipedia. Blackash feels they edit with WP:NPOV in mind. Part of the basis of WP:COI is that when writing about one's self, company, wife, house, or whatever, NPOV is almost impossible. I care about Wikipedia, they care about tree shaping. That is the essential difference between NPOV and COI.--96.233.40.199 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one to categorize arborsculpture as the word for Richard Reames work. I am just the most recent Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange you still haven't given what criteria you have used to justify the use of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you didn't like in the content my suggest sentence Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again with the implication that I only edit this article. not true. Repeating an argument doesn't make it true. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

About your comment to NOPV has a section on Bias "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." In an effort to ensure that I am being as neutral as possible, I have requested editorial assistance. To check and advices how I can improve my editing. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The intro states the "article discusses tree shaping methods developed in the 20th and 21st centuries." That is very different than if we said "the tree shaping methods discussed in this article are 20th and 21st century methods." If Blackash doesn't understand the difference between those statements, and if Blackash doesn't understand why "relationship" rather than "distinction" is the correct word choice elsewhere in this article, that might be because Blackash is not a native English speaker (I don't know, but this is my guess). The failure to understand nuances of word choice and grammar is another reason why Blackash should not be micromanaging this article as if they own it. I am personally responsible for hundreds of new articles on Wikipedia. I have had well over 100 articles appear in DYK. I check my articles very rarely, if ever, and when I do I only make changes that are very necessary (to correct a factual error, for example). If another editor wants to phrase something differently, or whatever, that is fine by me because that is the spirit of Wikipedia and the spirit of Wikipedia is something that I believe Blackash just does not want to embrace. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I said the limiting the time fame was wrong, and you still haven't justified inclusion why its need to be included. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationship means

• noun

1. a connection, association, or involvement.

2. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. found on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Relationship on

where Distinction means

• noun

1. a marking off or distinguishing as different:

2. the recognizing or noting of differences;

3. a distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic. found http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Distinction

Ummmm the words used in the paragraphs are of Topiary, Espalier, Pleaching and Bonsai

• Topiary the wording used is "By contrast" and "whereas shaped-tree"
• Espalier the wording used is "but shaped-tree projects are not" and "espalier-trained trees are not known"
• Pleaching the wording used is "but pleaching is limited" and "it is not"
• Bonsai the wording used is "Bonsai avoids", "Shaped trees is almost the opposite concept" and "would not be the true nature of bonsai." these are differentiating statements. Not statements showing how the different practices are similar. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As you are still unable to justify the change from distinction to Relationship this is a contested edit. I and will remove it. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Checking the Pooktre website, I see that Blackash grew up in Australia and therefore is, one would assume, a native Anglophone. Why exactly they introduce so many grammatically fractured edits is therefore puzzling, but the "why" is irrelevant. If they break a sentence, I'm going to fix it or simply undo the edit if word choice rather than content seems to be the matter. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stange how the sentence that you want to have Arborscuplture in went from

• "Tree shaping, known under a variety of names,"
• Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture or botanical architecture,

This version gives the impression that these are the only two names used and this is wrong. It also gives undue weight to Arborsculpture and Botanical architure. So I changing this back the the compromise, which replaced the word Arborsculpture with botanical architecture and other names. As this was not my sentence hopefully the grammar is right.

Whether or not we have a COI it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility in justifying the changes you want to make.Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC) =---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW "Botanical architecture" actual has zero hits on Google news. I am relived this page is getting looked at by more editors.Slowart (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange I just google news with Botanical architecture and got 48 hits. Arborsculpture has none. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Botanical architecture" = about 6,470 Google hits. "Arborsculpture" = about 29,500 Google hits. "Tree shaping" = about 146,000 Google hits but many if not most aren't about this specific subject but are instead about bonsai, topiary, the display of artificial Christmas trees, "Paul Mitchell Tea Tree Shaping Cream", etc. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping was chosen because it leads all over the Web, it is neutral generic and descriptive. "This is exactly the point: a generic term to get you started with this topic. The results are the same, just the techniques differ. Try to see the bigger picture for the average person. Rror (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" from earlier on in the history.

Google Bonsai, it leads all over the web, Google Arborsculpture comes from and leads to Richard Reames.Blackash (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackash says "My...agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture"

As can be seen in this edit user Blackash wrote "I am one of the practitioners (Pooktre) mentioned in the article. Understanding that there was a potential for a COI I have always endeavoured to edit from a NPOV. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees.(Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" Repeat: "My...agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture". If there is anyone besides Blackash who doesn't read this as admission of WP:COI and misuse of Wikipedia please speak up. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I touched that you deicded to change the heading from "Not clever enough to lie?" to the above.Blackash (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you give is where I asked for editorial assistance to improve my editing and to check that my editing is neutral. Since we don't wish to be branded with some else's method I gave an example and used the word Arborsculpture, to better allow the editor to decide whether we are being biased in our editing or not. Blackash (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't realised that I had already answered this. I have always stated that we don't care what the name of the artform is as long as there is not a method attached to it. There had been a consensus that Arborsculpture has a method link to it. In the books on the subject it gives "Arborscuplture techniques", which is the instant method of shaping. Blackash (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• RECAP - In 1995, Richard Reames published a book in which the word "arborculture" was coined. Reames doesn't claim this as a brand name nor as a term for his work alone. Some feel this term is synonymous with the phrase "tree shaping" as used in the title of this article. "Arborsculpture" has about 29,500 Google hits and the word has often been used to describe the tree shaping efforts of people other than Reames. A specialized Google search for "arborsculpture" without the word "Reames" still produces about 25,200 hits, one of which is "arborsculpture.org". However, a certain amount of antipathy exists between Reames (aka User:Slowart) and fellow tree-shaper/arborsculptor Becky Northey (aka User:Blackash) and Northey has stated rather plainly that her agenda is to not have the word coined by Reames applied to her work. According to my understanding, Northey led a campaign to have "tree shaping" rather than "arborsculpture" as the title of the article. That campaign was successful and, to some degree, Northey interprets this as a consensus that the word "arborsculpture" should be attached only to the work of Reames and those who use similar methods. Northey has made numerous edits to keep the word "arborsculpture" out of the intro and to assure that the word "arborsculpture" is used as the heading of the section in which Reames work is discussed. This is the primary issue. The secondary issue also centers around word choice, essentially whether "relationships between methods" versus "distinctions between methods" is the way to go. This secondary word choice issue is only contentious because Northey seems determined to be the one making these choices despite what some identify as a WP:COI. Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person (me) and that I'm a Wikipedian not a treescuptor. Reames has expressed approval that I've turned my attention to the article but has lately taken a very "hands off" approach citing his own WP:COI. No other editor has been involved recently, leaving me and User:Blackash to conduct what is basically a "slow-motion, no 3RR edit war" over these issues. I admit I've had trouble understanding some of Northey's arguements during this disagreement, and Northey herself has implied that written verbal expression isn't her strongest quality. At this point, however, I think I understand that Northey believes that the term "arborsculpture" should be confined to methods (such as those used by Reames) in which the bending of live trees, rather than more subtle or time instensive methods, is an important feature. I don't see evidence that Reames, the arborcultural community, nor the world at large makes this distinction. I hope I have represented Northey's position correctly. I'm annoyed at this time-wasting impasse and I'm sure Northey/User:Blackash is too. I really wish experienced Wikipedians would chime in. Sorry for the unattractive length of this message; thank you if you have read this. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't lead anything please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping and Pooktre AFD
• I already explained the differents between relationship and distinctions. It not up to me to justify, as the editor who wants to make the changes you need to justify why they are right.
• Please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping quote "it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary." John Gathright, quote "Mr. Reames has made extensive use of my material and sources in the development of both his craft (‘arborsculpture’) and his books. Still, I do not characterize his work as ‘Botanic Architecture’, nor would I associate my work, or Erlandson’s with ‘arborsculpture’. That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) for more please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shapingBlackash (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've listed this with Mediation Cabal and hopefully it will be sorted out soon. Blackash (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

justify your edit changes

As the editor it is up to you to justify the changes you want to make if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI doesn't relieve you of this responsibility. Please don't go editing the article again, without giving your justifications.Blackash (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". This quote is from [5].Blackash (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture

Arborscuplture is controversial which can easily be seen by starting at the beginning of the history page and read where people have started to object to the word Arborsculpture and in what context it should be used in. Majority of the history page is taken up this issue. Blackash (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Truce

As of my last edit, the article is a compromise. I think it would be a good idea to call a Truce. To allow the different editors form the COI Notice board, Mediation Cabal, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment to come and give their opinion. Blackash (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When reading Requests for comment it suggested to also ask for comments from the linked Wiki Project so I have Blackash (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 it would be nice if you talk here. 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 has replaced his changes on the article and said in edit summary"(supposed compromise does not reflect any of the edits i feel are important. WTF?").Quote by 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199.

I'm guessing that this is a no? Blackash (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary meaning of compromise is 1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Dictionary.com. Well I counted nine changes that you want to date, I didn't want any. I have not changed all your edits, some I tried to modify, and some I feel you need to say why the content should be changed in the way you want. I have repeatedly asked you give justification (or if you prefer supporting evidence) of why the changes you want are right. Going by the way you are editing it appears you have an agenda.

From your first discussion you have maintained (except for a backhanded apology) hostile and critical comments about me or my abilities, instead of talking about the content of the article. Wikipedia is about the content not the editors.Blackash (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Content

Tree shaping article has ungone a lot of editing back and forth. It is mainly about the word Arborsculpture and in what context the word should be used within the article. Also about changing the heading "Distinctions from other plant-shaping arts" to "Relationship to other plant-shaping arts", and which word to use in the lead paragraph. Blackash (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In short I like some new eyes looking at the content before this editing started to voice an opinion on which edits are improving the content and what isn't.

• How the page looked before these edits [6]
• How they edited last [7]
• How it looks modified between us both [8]

Blackash (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are one and the same person. They outed themselfs in the section Recap "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person." Blackash (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He said (208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199)+(Slowart/Reames) She said (Blackash) some facts you can check

What context should Arborsculpture be used in?

• 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 says:- I also reject Blackash's attempts to categorize "arborsculpture" as the specific term for the work of one person -- Richard Reames..... 96.233.40.199 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blackash says:- I am not the only one to categorize arborsculpture as the word for Richard Reames work. I am just the most recent Blackash 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes with links

1. These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture Rewritten

• ..true nature of this entry - which is to promote a book. The word arborsculpture does not exist in any other context. Primack 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• It does not appear in the english dictionary or in any literature (apart from the book for which it was coined). It is not accepted as an alternative name for the art of pleaching by anyone, and should not be taken to mean anything which it is not. It is the title of a book - nothing more. 58.106.39.89 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2. These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture No orighinal research

• Arborsculpture is the title of a book, and it is, understandably, the intention of the author that this title become widespread enough to be used as a word in the english language, but to use the encyclopedia to achieve this end instead of letting the term develop naturally, and then documenting it, is not right. MPrimack 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

3 These quotes are from when the article's name was Arborsculpture Reames

• ..when doing some research we found that none of the artists who shape trees use Arborsculpture to describe their own work. Blackash 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Google Bonsai, 1000s of clubs and associations. Google Arborsculpture no clubs or associations, Arborsculpture comes from and points to Richard Reames. Blackash 04:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

4.Please read Articles for deletion Pooktre

• The issue is more complicated than I thought. Apparently there is no generally agreed-upon name for the practice of shaping trees. Arborsculpture appears to be associated with a single artist's work and book on the subject, and Pooktre is the method of another single artist. The proper course of action here is to move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests), and then merge and redirect the Pooktre article there. AfD hero 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

5.Please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping for the full length quotes

• You are right in that there is not enough content for Arborsculpture or Pooktre to have their own page. One page that has a neutral name for every one is much better. Blackash 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• "it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary." John Gathright,
• "That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts...............So for now I must agree that ‘arborsculpture’ should be confined to Mr. Reames particular commercial work, books and art. The same would be true of Mr. Cooks ‘pooktre’, Mr. Nash’s Ash Dome, Mr. Ladd’s ‘extreme nature’ and my ‘Botanic Architecture’. Thank you for your consideration. MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• R.Reames' Arbor sculpture...... I would prefer my work was not related to his definition at all. danladd.com Gourds1 02:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• there is no established name -> use most generic..Rror (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arborsculpture should it be used?

• 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 says:- Arborsculpture should be in the lead paragraph.
• Blackash says:- You are giving to much weight to Arborscuplture.

• Blackash I have used google news as quick way to find a name that is most in use. It filters out personal webpages and blogs. Arborsculpture has no hits arborsculpture google news Botanical architecture has 44 hits Botanical architecture Blackash 10:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blackash changes Arborsculpture to Botanical architecture.
• 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 adds Arborsculpture to Botanical architecture and changes the context of sentence.

• Slowart/Reames says_BTW "Botanical architecture" actual has zero hits on Google news. I am relived this page is getting looked at by more editors. Slowart 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 says_"Botanical architecture" = about 6,470 Google hits. "Arborsculpture" = about 29,500 Google hits. "Tree shaping" = about 146,000 Google hits 96.233.40.199 08:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blackash says_Strange I just google news with Botanical architecture and got 48 hits. Arborsculpture has none. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Today I Googled

Botanical architecture has hits....2,540,000 Google

Arborsculpture has hits...................37,100 Google

Today I Google News

Botanical architecture has hits...............54 Google News

Arborsculpture has hits...........................0 Google News

Arborsculpture is a Neologism. Wikipedia has a policy on this WP:NEO "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." Blackash (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong. Google "Botanical architecture" in parenthesis. Only about 6,680 hits, much less than arborsculpture. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Google search is not a reliable source.

• Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. Quote from Invalid criteria

Some quotes about Google search

• It's not a reliable source for that information. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC) link to quote
• If the question is: Are google search results considered a reliable source? the answer is no. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I already responded to the question of google searches as RS. It a question that has come up frequently. They are not. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) follow this link for the two quotes shown above.
• Google hits are not a good way to go. Use reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Link to quote

208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 Please find reliable sources for Arborsculpture. Reliable sources for neologisms [9] Google searches are not references WP:V Blackash (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Shameless WP:COI (and botched search results)

Blackash, since you recently spent so much time quoting search engine results to us, at least realize that actual results are different than the bad results you got because you don't know how to conduct a search properly. When you thought the results supported your opinion you touted them, now you are bludgeoning us not to consider them at all. From day to day, you misconstruct new arguments, misunderstand new policies to accuse people of, or otherwise clumsily adopt some new strategy to abusively use Wikipedia to effect your real life reputation and the repuations of your real life competitors. This shameless, shameless WP:COI and the real reasons you want to control dialogue about his subject are well-documented. Give it up. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 Please enlighten us all as to what you believe my real reasons are. Don't just make accusations, give links so people can decide for themselves.

• I had already said that I used Google News because it filters out personal webpages and blogs. I put Google in for you.

• Going by your continuing strong reactions to a polite requests for references, you seem to be more closely connected to the subject then you let on. .
• Whether or not I have COI doesn't change the fact that the word Arborscuplture is a Neologism. As the editor putting it in the article you need to provide verifiable reliable sources to back you up. Wikipedia has clear policies about this WP:NEO WP:V WP:PROVEIT. Belittling me doesn't change that. Blackash (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)