Talk:Tree shaping

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)

• When asked repeatably to answer my questions, the COI card is brought into play again. As you know multiple editors have stated I don't COI and can edit the main article. The potential for conflict lies in fact I'm Co-founder of Pooktre a name for the art work of my life partner and I.
• Trying to stop me from discussing issues on the talk page by claiming I have a conflict of interest. (Goes against How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.") Please discusses my points above as you have yet to answer any of them. Blackash have a chat 15:14, 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)

Slowart has again manually revert back to having the 3 names into the lead. I have removed them from the lead sentence.

• Having any alternative names in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to those words.
• Having no alternative names in the lead follows WP:LEAD

I've created a compromise based on what Griseum proposed when he and Slowart both agreed there shouldn't be any alternative names in the lead sentence. tree shaping Blackash have a chat 23:42, 20 February 2011

I have just read the most recent changes and think it is a good compromise to have the alternate names with the artist.

Martin, I dont understand what your comment about potential COIs when clearly a real COI is being ignored by you. Blackash has done some excellent work with the techniques which was what I was looking for when I frist came to this article. I will again quote from "Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet" written by Richard Reams also known as Slowart."It is my deepest desire that others will feel inspired to carry this artform into the mainstream." Is this the role of wikipedia? Of course Richard Reams wants his word "arborsculpture" to be in the lead as it is his marketing funnel which leads to his web-site and his products for sale.This fact seems to be ignored by all. I feel the article should be locked as it is now until the mediators make their discision.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Several secondary sources refer to the subject as "arborsculpture" and the term is used in many circles. Therefore it should be somewhere in the lead. To do otherwise would give an undue weight to the term "tree shaping" and potentially confuse readers who have heard other terms. Also lets be honest here - wikipedia influences culture. Whatever word we use has a larger chance of catching on, and this has an associated commercial impact for the involved parties. If a reporter sees some sculpted trees and wants to write a story, the first thing they are going to do is google it and read the intro section on this page. This is unavoidable, but we should seek to mitigate the effect as best we can by placing the alternate names in bold in the lead. I am not swayed by the style guideline arguments presented. Such lawyer-like methods of reasoning are a mental crutch that allow one to be decisive without giving honest consideration to the issues involved. AfD hero (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most important, surely, is that editors with a commercial interest in this subject should not make edits to the article that might have a potential commercial impact. To put this more bluntly, Blackash and Slowart should not be making any edits involving the name 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork tried to have this as the lead Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names), change with some of his reasoning here here. I stated I don't think any alternative names should be in the lead, but SilkTork said it not about how we use Pooktre but how others do. SilkTork found pooktre to be in use as generic name for this art form. So I agreed to the comprise of Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names),

But Slowart and Griseum said no way could Pooktre be in the lead. Which lead them to stating/agreeing, to the removing of arborsculpture and pooktre out of the lead. As I believe having any of the alternative names in the lead gives to much weight, I agreed.

If you really think some alternative names need to be in the lead how about this?

Tree shaping also called tree training, arborsculpture, pooktre or several alternative names,

I've listed tree training first as it has a lots references from different sources, and doesn't lead to any one artist. Blackash have a chat 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've gone to the edit war notice board here. Over the last few of days or so Slowart/Reames replaced his word Arborsculpture plus two others alternative names into the lead, both Sydney Bluegum and myself have pointed out his COI and I've repeatedly ask him to talk here. Now he is removing cited content about himself. Maybe I should have taking him to COI noticeboard as well. Blackash have a chat 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, as someone with no direct interest in the subject but a regular observer of the article, the greatest conflict of interest seems to relate to yourself. I think this case should be referred to the COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin You seem to attack Blackash always. Why has she got a greater COI ? I see it as a potential COI . Please explain what you mean rather than making outragious comments that do little to support your work as an independent editor. Do you like stirring the pot? Or is there a hidden agender here?I have asked you to explain your statements previously and you ignore me Sydney Bluegum (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not take this to the COI noticeboard and let them decide. Some time age I suggested that Slowart and Blackash both withdraw from the discussion on the article name to avoid a COI and that they allowed editors with no commercial interest in this subject to decide the matter. Slowart agreed to withdraw but Blackash did not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin This is not about the name of the article. When it comes to content I think those who have the skills or have read the books need to input. What about the fact that Slowart has removed cited content about himself? He has done this on two different occassions now and you suppported him last time as well. This was reversed when pointed out that it was against wiki policy to remove cited material.Please explain why you are going against wiki policy.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Martin you got to be kidding! Slowart who removes cited content about his own method/word (Arborsculpture) verses me who is supporting an edit that removes all alternative names from the lead which follows WP:LEAD. Martin I agree with Blue Rasberry on this issue you are not a neutral editor. Now that you are back please answer my points in the above section.Blackash have a chat 00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is Blue Rasberry? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin you could have followed the link I give on COI about Blue Rasberry's quote or here is the link again. NPOV Noticeboard Blackash have a chat 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, just to make my position quite clear. I believe that neither yourself nor Slowart, nor anyone else with a commercial interest in the subject should make any edits relating to the naming of the art or any other issue of commercial significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do to quote ".As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. As you know multiple editors have stated it fine for me to be part of the discussions and for me to edit the article. Please don't rehash your latest rhetoric, I still have discussion points above we could talk about. Blackash have a chat 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

COI

I've posted on the COI Noticeboard. Blackash have a chat 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

At the COI Noticeboard Slowart has stated he doesn't like the heading of instant tree shaping, so lets change this heading, does anyone have some suggestions? Blackash have a chat 00:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "the Reames Arborsculpture Method" or RAM for short, might be an alternative to "Instant tree shaping" which I think is appropriate as it describes what it is.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Reames Arborsculpture Method", but I would be interested to hear Slowart's view on this heading. Blackash have a chat 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture title again

Slowart made this comment on COI notice board. As this discussion really belongs here I've copied it over plus my reply.

WhatamIdoing and Johnuniq I'd like to point out some important points. Blackash starts a page titled Pooktre, at the AFD and without any notice anywhere AfD hero changes the Arborsculpture page to Tree shaping.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre [blackash spams the world with this]The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, IMHO The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressThe best of the crop is see pdf page 6 text book page 442 section 4.

Basically what you have here is a page title that should be reverted to Arbosculpture as it was incorrectly changed and then it should have some semi protection from those who are just way too close to the subject to be unbiased.Slowart (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Slowart this discussion is not about the title but...

I'll do my best keep it brief, mainly summing up and giving links to help other edits get an overview. There has been disagreements about arborsculpture since 2007 quotes from editors who disagree about arborsculpture. Google arborsculpture and see where it goes.

I start where Slowart did and go till now. Anyone interest in knowing more can ask at the tree shaping talk page and I'm sure you'll get answers.

• Article page before the move, [1] Please note the amount of content and how frequently Arborsculpture is used in the article.
• Page created for the references of the different names of the art-form. Quotes and sources
• Discussion about moving Arborsculpture to Tree shaping AFD 4 editors out of 6 editors discuss using a less secret topic or a neutral name:- Mgm suggests merging Pooktre into a less secret topics like Tree shaping or Tree trimming diff AfD hero suggests moving Arborsculpture to neutral name diff Rror agreed diff as did I Blackash diff
• AfD hero moved the article and created section on the talk page.
• Reames/Slowart disagreed with the move diff
• 11 editors where part of the discussion about the name after the move. The article stayed at Tree shaping.
• During informal mediation the title come up again and after a lot of writing SilkTork the mediator stated "...Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" link
• The title issue was raised again here and then a day later a Requested move was created. Which resulted in no move.
• There was a request for references for tree shaping and talk about having a different title to tree shaping or arborsculpture which lead to me creating a group tables quotes and sources. Slowart added most of the sources for arborsculpture. Please note most of the sources for arborsculpture are based on interviews/book reviews of two self published books written by a non expert.
• There are 3 archives of talk about moving the title to arborsculpture or to holding or temporary title. diff
• I repeatedly suggested talking about a real alternative to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping, if it was found that tree shaping doesn't meet wikipedia policies/guidelines. I suggested Tree training, as had other editors and Slowart agreed diff to it as a title and it meets Wikipedia guidelines/policies. The pro arborsculpture editors didn't like that title but didn't rebut my points link. So that ended with no consensus.
• As to leaving comments around web, when arborsculpture appeared on our photos we left comments to correct misinformation. Also please read Blue Rasberry's quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?" Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) diff of full quote.
• I've twice filed for formal mediation to do with the word Arborsculpture. As Slowart still feels the title was unfairly moved he should take it up the dispute ladder.

I've left a heap of the arguments from both sides out, it mainly a timeline. I don't think we really need to rehash this again. If Slowart wants to file for formal mediation I'm willing to talk or if he doesn't want to talk to me he can take it further up the dispute ladder. Blackash have a chat 11:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the result of your request for mediation? Martin Hogbin (talk)

Just for the record I am still around but RL is taking up vast amounts of my time. Also I still think in this case WP Policy demands the article's first title be preserved, or a neutral, non-commercial phrase be used until the artistic community forms a consensus on the subject. By the way article expansion after a title change is explicitly not to be used as an argument to keep that title as it would discourage editors adding to articles with titles they feel should be changed. So people should stop making that argument here. Colincbn (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article is currently unprotected, allowing IP editors to contribute. I note that IP edits are causing concern already. I am willing to semi-protect again. What are people's views? SilkTork *^YES! 12:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think allowing the widest possible range of editors to have an input is a good thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the latest IP editors are just are sock puppets for Richard Reames/ Slowart as they are doing the same edits he did. These edits lead to Slowart being taken to COI notice board. I have reverted these edits. I have been waiting for Slowart to give his input on changes to "instant tree shaping" heading. I think it should be protected from IP's while there are random IP's coming in and doing edits Slowart wants with no talking. Slowart has had every opportunity to come up with a compromise and offer alternatives but has not bothered, instead it appears he is recruiting IP editors.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you believe an editor is using sockpuppets you should bring it to the appropriate notice board (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations). Basing decisions about a separate issue on an unsubstantiated assumption of wrong doing is not WP Policy. Nor is an editor's stance on an issue enough to claim sockpuppetry, if that was the case you are a puppet of Blackash and I am a puppet of Martin. Colincbn (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is to great a coincidence to just assume that the IPs edits not related to Slowarts. I think Semi-protection is a good idea. Blackash have a chat 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, assuming sockpuppetry because of a perceived coincidence is the very definition of "Assuming Bad Faith". As I said above and SilkTork says below, if you think there may be an issue with sockpuppetry you should bring it to the appropriate place; ie: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Just as you tell people to do with CoI accusations Policy does not state that you should use accusations when dealing with content disputes. Also I.P. editors often read talk pages and edit how they see fit without taking part in the discussion, and they are allowed to. I don't think it is the best way to add to WP but it is one of the fundamental pillars of the project. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn you are right that I'm assuming bad faith of the IP's, in future I'll just mention that the edits are the same if that is the case. I will continue to ask the IP's to talk here and go back to assuming good faith. Blackash have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If there has been a pattern of behaviour to lead to genuine suspicion of sockpuppetry, please request an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There is no clear consensus on protecting the article at the moment; however, if there's more support for protection, or there are more examples of inappropriate IP edits, then I will semi-protect. SilkTork *^YES! 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Insistent false accusations on my real name should be grounds for topic ban, IMO.Slowart (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slowart, while you here make some suggestions for "Instant tree shaping heading", so we can change it. Blackash have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have just reverted another IP edit making similar edits to the last one and describing it as fixing vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin that was me I thought I was logged in. I was reverting an IP's edit not doing the same edit.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Sydney Bluegum has never pretend to be here for any other reason then to find out more about the methods of shaping, they have point this out 2-3 times here and also now on the topic ban noticeboard. My understanding is it fine to be a WP:SPA just that more experienced editors will take more care in checking the SPA edits. Blackash have a chat 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Protected. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cite content

Martin I don't understand why you took the artists in the summary out of chronological order. Why do you make a conscious decision to remove cited content? Martin as it seems you feel strongly about whats happening here in regards to arborsculpture and other issues will you agree to mediation with me? Blackash have a chat 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I've listed again this time with Martin [2] Blackash have a chat 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

The editors (blackash and slowart) do excellent work in main-space but argue constantly in talk-space. So we ban them from mainspace, but continue to allow them to edit the talk page? If any banning was to be done it should have been the exact opposite. What a clownish decision by the community. Bah. AfD hero (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is thinking of a permanent bad for Blackash and Slowart. What I think is required is that they be banned completely from the article and talk pages and from discussing the subject elsewhere until the editors without a COI resolve the commercially sensitive issues. After that they should be welcomed back, but permanently banned from editing anything commercially significant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD hero, when I replied above, I did not realise that the two editors had been topic banned. You are quite right, banning them from the article but not the talk is bizarre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if either of them will want to edit anymore, I hope they do, but this kind of thing can be a pretty big blow. The way I see it if they have changes they want made they can bring them up here, even doing them in their sandbox first. And other editors can put them in. This will (hopefully) avoid the slow edit war about the lead and the naming issue. Also using the WP page to negatively characterize a rival's methods should be curtailed. As for me this has restored some of my faith that the WP community will do the right thing, eventually. If they come back I hope they see this as a chance to reassess what they are editing for. Hopefully they decide that editing WP must be for the benefit of WP not of their own commercial interests. I think a short term ban is appropriate, I would say no more than six months and possibly less. I think after this they may be more willing to let others decide on contentious commercially relevant issues and I would support either of them if they have that in mind when they apply to have the ban lifted. Colincbn (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban prevents two editors from editing any article related to tree shaping. The topic ban is indefinite (in principle, it could be appealed and possibly reversed after a long period of helpful contributions—contributions that show that previous problems have been overcome). The editors are not banned from anything else, and are welcome to comment on any talk page about any topic. See the closing statement here.

It would be very unwise for anyone to repeatedly raise similar issues on these talk pages. When a topic ban has been enacted, everyone should take it as a hint that the community is losing patience and if protracted arguments broke out about the topics mentioned in the topic ban discussion, anyone engaged in unhelpful behavior would be likely to receive sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Martin I've rebutted your claim about COI diff unless you are going to file somewhere please desist from making such statements. Blackash have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Colincbn I'm going to continue to edit wiki, the whole time I've been editing orphans as well as tree shaping stuff. Good idea about the sandbox, the grafting paragraph (in tree shaping) is not quite right but I'll wait a few weeks before I start a new sandbox for it. Strange comment "negatively characterize a rival's methods" I'm guessing you are talking about the heading "instant tree shaping" as Slowart voiced distaste for this heading. I would like to point out that I've repeatedly asked for suggestions to change this heading. I have no real preference as to what the heading should be. Removing referenced/cited content because Slowart views it as damaging to himself is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not here to build up or protect a person's reputation. If you think any of the cited content I've added is out of context, I will type up the text from the source here on the talk page. Blackash have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am honestly glad to hear that. Also I was avoiding making any direct accusations of anyone, I was just addressing some concerns that were brought up by others. I imagine you agree that WP should not be used to deride a rivals work, therefore any attempts to do so should be discouraged. Also just because something is "cited" does not necessarily mean it is appropriate. One can cite many books that say man never went to the moon, but they should not be used in the Apollo 11 article. The ref, the statement, and the benefit to the article of the added content must all be considered. That being said I have not looked into the content you are referring to so I withhold my opinion on that.

If you do make a sandbox for editing the article let me know when you want something added and I will be more than happy to put it in for you. Colincbn (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the methods, 90% of emails send to us, asks how do we do it and what trees do we use. In a general article about the art form the various methods are of interest to the reader. Also when the pooktre article was up for deletion, one of the reasons given to delete the pooktre article was "isn't very interesting with out the method". Blackash have a chat 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What now?

Now that the two editors with a potential COI have been banned, what needs to be done? I suggest that two things need to be looked at. I very strongly suggest that Blackash and Slowart do not take part in this discussion.

Subject name

This has been the subject of endless discussion and is a very contentious topic. I think we need to look again at the subject and decide on the best name for this article, based strictly on established WP policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Arborscupture, Pooktre, or anything longer than 4 words. Other than that I don't care. Arborsculpture or Pooktre would present a biased point of view for reasons debated to death in the past. This would violate NPOV, which is not only a policy, but also one of the core principles that wikipedia was founded upon. AfD hero (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to go back to first principles and study the policy on this matter. The past debate was lead by two editors with a commercial interest in the subject and should be ignored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Arborsculpture, Pooktre, and Tree Shaping are all pretty much out. But I have never seen a policy that says a title must be, or even should be, four words or less. In fact The policy on neologisms specifically says to use long unwieldy titles if there is no short noun or phrase that can be used. I think what it comes down to is refs. I always liked "Tree Training" as it avoids the arbo/pook dispute and it is not used in reference to a separate art like Tree Shaping is. The problem arises from the fact that WP cant claim it to be "The Name" of the art when the artists themselves have not decided that it is, and therefore there no refs (or very few anyway) that claim it is. But since they have decided on no single name a long phrase may be all we are left with. Colincbn (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have stated in the past that I think 'Tree Training' should be the title of the article as it meets wiki criteria and other editors agreed with it. It is also what Axel Erlandson called it. I don't think WP needs to claim the art form. I disagree that a long name should be used . The examples editors came up with in the past were ridiculous.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping isn't a neologism so WP:NEO doesn't apply. There are various policies involved in deciding on a new WP:NAME, plus wikipedia core policy WP:NEUTRAL. Wikipedia also follows WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't prescribe it describes. (It is not up the artists to decide what the title is. Though the artists can point out where a title doesn't meet Wikipedia policies.) I feel there is not a clear case to change from Tree shaping to a long awkward title name. If a change is to happen, changing to a similarly short title that is in reliable sources, meets neutrality (as it doesn't lead to any one artist), previously both Slowart and myself (and other editors) state Tree training is suitable as a title and something wikipeida's users would naturally use to find the article. Tree training is a viable option as the new title as it meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies, if it is found that Tree shaping is not suitable. Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to look at established literature on the subject and see if there is a name that has been commonly used for this subject. I will see if I can call in to the library of the Royal Horticultural Society and see if there is a name in use. The problem with all the simple names that have been proposed so far is that they all mean something else, 'tree training' is what is done to many fruit trees, 'tree shaping' refers to the common practice of pruning trees to maintain a natural shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the befit of outside editors List of potential title names with references and quotes Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Tree Training (artistic)" might be viable as well, but again it is up to the community of artists to decide on a unified name not us. Of course they should be doing that in some other forum, certainly not on WP talk pages. Also it does not matter in any way whether we "like" having a long name. It only matters whether Policy dictates that we have a long name. If you don't like it the place to debate it is at the Policy page in question, not here.

WP:NEO, Quote:

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Colincbn (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried that and it was immediately reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like 'Forming of tree roots and branches into artistic shapes'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note in Colincbn comment this part of the quote "for which no accepted short-hand term exists" from WP:NEO.

1. There hasn't been a consensus that Tree shaping isn't appropriate, and it is short with appropriate references as a title for the art form. refs
2. Also there is another option of a short title that also meets WP polices Tree training as I've pointed out above and now multiple editors have stated it seems ok. refs Blackash have a chat 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of notable practitioners

This section needs to be discussed particularly regarding the mention of those businesses with current commercial interests in the subject. Again, we should look at established policies on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think as long as all practitioners are covered the same way there is no problem with having this section. I will look through and make any changes that seem needed to maintain NPOV. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The ones here seem reasonably notable and covered by secondary sources, so I see no problem with including them. Perhaps if the page gets too long we may have to reevaluate and/or create a separate page. AfD hero (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bench Image

I must say I really don't like the image. I know that Duff was all for it and I am in no way suggesting Blackash did anything wrong by drawing and putting it in. But we have a great photo of Peter Cook from Pooktre in this awesome chair they grew right at the top. We have a really good shot of two angles of their mirror. And this amazing sketch by Blackash of some of Chris Cattle's Grownup furniture. Next to those the bench sketch seems lacking. Again I know it was Duff that first spoke of putting it in, and I am not suggesting anything but good faith on Blackash's part, and I certainly can't draw well enough to make a sketch like that myself. I just think we can find a better representation of Reams's work if we tried. Colincbn (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked previously for current photos of Richard Reames recent works and they have not been forthcoming. The Blackash drawing of the bench chair is very similar to other drawings in his books only better I do not think it should be removed. I would be interested to discuss how we are going to deal with the commercially sensitive inclusions.I think we should deal with these before doing any thing else to the article or even talk about a name change.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

People, can we all be careful that we do not allow this to become a commercial matter again. We want the best pictures showing the art in the best way, regardless of who is in them or who made them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I chose the bench to draw, as it a pivotal piece in Richard Reames's Book example it is on his back cover of his 2nd book and in his media publicly. The different methods should have a piece shaped showing the results of each method.Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume the above is Blackash. I think that was a great Idea. I'm not saying we just remove it. I'm just thinking there must be an actual Photo of his work we can use. We already have the Peace Symbol bit down in his section. But a good example of the "Instant" or "manual" method would be good. By the way if anyone else has a better neutral name than the Manual Method by all means change it. Colincbn (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind the drawings is they are based on mature living examples and not someone's theory of how the trees will turn out. Also they don't have any background, thus the shapes of the trees are easily seen. Photos of mature pieces with the background removed would also work. Blackash have a chat 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested to Slowart that because the bench photos are 10 years out of date (which my drawing is based on) and the peace sign in 6 years out of date that he takes a new photo of either one of these pieces and I would be willing to remove the background and then the photo could be used instead of the bench drawing. [3] Blackash have a chat 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the Manual title to Simple Manual tree shaping. I have a reference from Richard Reames 2nd book "Arborsculpture" where he describes his Peace Symbol as simple. I have to figure out how to do references.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing un-sourced content and references

1. Colincbn when contesting that something is un-sourced isn't it policy to put on the contest info and give the other editors time to get the references?
2. Colincbn, do you have any of the books? My understanding of ring barking from other sources is it is used to kill a tree or to ring bark a branch (that is planed to be remove later) to help increase fruit production. Please find another reference where ring barking is used to control the growth speed of a tree to give balance to a design. If not please replace this wording and reference diff.
3. Colincbn in this diff you removed Arborsculpture form this sentence "...for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design", by removing Arborsculpture it seems like others in this field use this technique. As far as I'm aware no one else in the art form uses ring barking as a means of control, and in English Richard is the only one to publish so. Blackash have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Basicaly I'm trying to remove the POV that Arborscupture is somehow fundamentally different and incompatible with all other forms of the art by describing things as neutrally as possible. If you are suggesting that anyone who uses ring barking is no longer "Tree Shaping" and is now "Arborsculpting" I would have to disagree. The article is Tree Shaping and therefore all the techniques therein should be considered Tree Shaping techniques, correct? Or is Arborsculpture not Tree Shaping?

There is no policy against removing unsourced content. If you have a reliable reference about the Pooktre People Trees being the only known trees shaped like humans post it here or my talk page and I will add it back in a jiffy. Colincbn (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Words can and do have more than one definition. Arborsculpture is one of those words that has more than one definition. Colincbn, the word Arborsculpture also represents a method (which is fundamentally different to the other methods) of shaping trees, it not appropriate for you systematically remove or change cited wording to censer this aspect out of the article. WP:VERIFY Please replace the cited wording in these diff and diff. Blackash have a chat 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is that Arborsculpture is not Tree Shaping? Colincbn (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology. I think that desire is one of the main things that has lead to problems here. I suggest just stepping back and letting go. See where the article goes when people who honestly don't care about it do the editing. I really think that in a while you will see us take the great content that you added and turn it into a great encyclopedia article. Neutral, balanced, and well written. Just relax, this will probably not effect your business and art at all. Colincbn (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is Arborsculpture has two definitions WP:NPOV quote "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Colincbn you are systematically changing cited wording to censer this definition out which is not the act of a neutral editor. Please replace the cited wording and references. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So if someone uses the Pooktre method exclusively they are "Tree Shaping" but if they do a single ring bark in conjunction with that method they cease to be Tree Shaping and are now Arborsculpting? Because if you actually read the changes I made all I was doing was saying that all these methods are "Tree Shaping". And the only reason to take offence is if they are not. Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light. Please step back and try to look at this dispassionately. Colincbn (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone is doing a Pooktre technique and then they decide to try Arborsculpture technique of ring barking, then yes they are no longer doing Pooktre but are then doing Arborsculpture. But both techniques are tree shaping. Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. It's a broad general over all name. Colincbn it seems you feel it has to be either Tree shaping or Arborsculpture. It also seems you are insisting that Arborsculpture has only one definition, why is that? Blackash have a chat 09:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. What I'm saying is that since both techniques are tree shaping and Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. All methods fall under the title of this article and therefore the wording should reflect that they are all equally "Tree Shaping". The article has alternative names clearly stated. As such all those names should be interchangeable with "Tree Shaping". Now I know you don't like it when people call your work by someone else's name, but WP is not here to do what you, or anyone else "likes" (including Slowart and myself even [edit: To clarify, what I mean is that WP is not here to do what anyone, including me, likes of course]). What it is here to do is give information in a neutral encyclopedic manner. To you Neutrality seems to mean "Doing whatever Blackash wants". But that is not really the case. In fact your refusal to accept that WP is not the place for you to battle about this issue has lead to your topic ban. With the edits above I have not claimed that Pooktre is Arborsculpture, just that all those methods are Tree Shaping. Colincbn (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, Thank you for acknowledging that there is more than one definition for the word Arborsculpture.

You have made a couple of statements, that seem a bit odd.

• Colincbn, quote "I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology." To rebut Have a look at Judo they not only go into techniques but also the refinements of each techniques. Grafting goes into detail about individual techniques as well. So it seems normal to have a referenced wording like Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking in a wikipedia article. This wording meets WP:VERIFY as well.
• Colincbn, quote "Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light." Statment/Question Excuse me. Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary. Into the lead diff and further down diff. How do these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. showing Arborsculpture in a negative light?

What your diffs' 1 and 2. show, you are systematically removing or changing referenced/cited wording to censer out one definition of Arborsculpture. Which doesn't follow WP:NPOV.

Let's cut to the chase Colincbn are you going to put the references and the cited wording back? Blackash have a chat 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First off I'm not even sure what you mean by "Cited Wording" we site facts not wording. Second the only refs I removed were multiple versions of the same ref, which I left in at the end of the paragraph. So if what you are asking me to do is change the article to reflect your personal view that Arbo is incompatible with all other tree shaping than no, I will not be making that change. And I would remind you that this issue is exactly what got you banned from editing the article. Colincbn (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also if you want to bring up WP:VERIFY show me a ref that states Reames is the only artist that uses ring barking. All my edits did was describe ring barking as a tree shaping technique, which it is. Colincbn (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited wording is wording like Arborsculpture technique of ring barking or Arborsculpture design that has multiple references for this exact wording.

Cloincbn The sentences you removed both were WP:VERIFY. It seems you changed them to reflect your truth not what is verifiable. Which of these sentences state only Richard does ring barking? Out of the 4 books published (in English) 2 of them talk about this technique both of which write about the techniques as part to the published method of Richard Reames. This is what can be WP:VERIFY. I didn't suggest that only Richard Reames does this Arborsculpture technique of ring barking for the article. I was letting you know though my knowledge of other artists in this tiny field that they don't use the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking. Until there are references in other places about ring barking being used as a technique (to slow the growth of one side of design trunk) being used as part of the other methods, the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking will remain unique to its published method.

The funny thing about methods is, if different techniques are used to achieve an outcome then yes those methods will be "fundamentally different". Arborsculpture has a definition where it is a technique which is used in the first method, so yes it is different to the other methods.

Also you haven't clarified how these sentences show Arborsculpture in a negative light.Blackash have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm Martin you are quick to claim something is commercial, I hope you will be as quick to clarify how having Arborsculpture with a referenced/cited definition on the page is of "commercial significance". Please don't waffle like you did with SilkTork [4]. Blackash have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it very worrying that you do not see a conflict of interest in a person who uses the name 'Pooktre' in their own business and who objects to the name 'arborsculpture' because they believe it is too closely related to another business discussing use of the the names 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an acknowledged world expert in this field. It is only a potential COI as practitioner discussing this art form. In the past when you tried to claim COI or commercialism it was done so you can change the focus of the discussion from the content to my behavior. WP:COI Quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." It is up to the editor to justify the changes they want to make if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI/commercially connected doesn't relieve them of this responsibility. I'm pointing out that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles.

Martin you claim this is of commercial significance and yet don't state why. How are these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. of commercial significance. Is this building someone up? If you think so, then how? Is this damaging to someone? If you think that, then how? Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Blackash listed on ANI to have me sanctioned over this. Colincbn (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Crazy! Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, where did I ask for you to sanctioned? I only talked about content, and requested some editors to look into this. Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 12th Blackash added Pooktre [5]to the lead sentence, as if the whole art is called Pooktre. The one Press release that said that, was shown to be an unreliable source.

The section now titled Manual tree shaping, was originally intended to tie a perceived inferior method, along with a perceived inferior technique of "ring barking", to Reames and his books.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage the editors to re-think the page name, the lead and the Manual tree shaping section. Carry on as you wish of course, I'll try not to muck up the talk page any more. I think you Colincbn and Martin are doing good work under trying conditions. Hopefully a few more editors will look in on the article, it deserves better than to be a battlefield.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, multiple editors have found pooktre to be used as the name for the art form and a few have even added it to the lead at different times. I put it into the lead as part of a comprise just above this section based on SilkTork trying to mediate the lead here here. Also the reference on tree shaping for pooktre is not the press release you talk about. Please go and check it out. Blackash have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that you have a conflict of interest here also, Slowart. Best you do not comment on 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Working towards compromise

How about this, as far as the current situation with my copyedits, if you provide me a source, your own website would be fine as far as I am concerned, that says Pooktre refuses to use ring barking and other techniques that damage the tree etc. (I'm not sure if that is actually your position or not, but if you give some details of your exact methods and reasons I will explain your stance as stated), I can place that under your entry in the Practitioners section clearly stating that those techniques are not a part of the Pooktre method. That way there will be no confusion about whether Pooktre uses them, but we can still avoid labeling every technique to a particular method. The fact is all techniques and methods are included under "Tree Shaping", therefore I see no reason to label one as an Arbo technique and another as a Grownup Furniture technique etc., unless a particular artist actually has never used one, nor will ever, on some kind of moral grounds, such as not wanting to hurt the trees they work with. If that is the case it should go under that artist's section. Of course we will need refs to include if that is the case. Does this sound like something you can live with? Colincbn (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the methods go there are 3 distinct methods with own cite-able techniques. Techniques that are published with a method should stay with that method unless/until there are references for a technique being used for a different method. Which would then meet WP:VERIFY Then that technique would naturally be moved to the Common techniques to all forms of tree shaping detailing how it is used in each method.

Colincbn I can give you a reference about ring barking. In Richard Reames's 2nd book he talks about his technique of ring barking and states something like most artists are loathed to wound their art. in regards to the use of ring barking to control growth. So on tree shaping article where it talks about ring barking it could be added that most practitioners of the art form don't use this technique. Blackash have a chat 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be no compromise regarding the COI here. Editors who practice and advocate a particular technique should not be trying to influence the way that technique is presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Martin Hogbin, but I think it is reasonable to ask anyone including Blackash to provide opinions on what the article might say about techniques (which independent editors can assess). This topic presents some difficulties because (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) there are no useful secondary sources that provide precise definitions of the various techniques involved. If there were such sources, I do not see how we could have had all the arguments about terminology because with proper secondary sources we would just follow their lead. Without such sources, it is going to be difficult to present precise details that distinguish between various techniques. I have a pdf somewhere that I found a couple of months ago with some brief descriptions, but I do not recall it having sufficient material on which to build an article. So, what I am suggesting is that Colincbn's plan of describing details for various techniques may be hard to implement in practice—if there are suitable secondary sources, we will just follow them; if there are not, we should only present broad overviews and leave it for individual websites to expound upon their currently favored techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I understand the difficulties that you refer to and agree that Slowart and Blackash will be able to make unique and important contributions to this article but they both should not be involved the naming of the art or their own contributions to it or their own preferred techniques.

Once the contentious issues have been sorted by editors with no COI, I would welcome the contributions of both Slowart and Blackash, subject to their appreciation of the continuing potential COI and the vigilance of other editors in avoiding this.

At the moment Blackash is banned from editing the article, pending resolution of certain issues. The sooner those issues can be properly resolved, the sooner the ban can be lifted and the experts on the subject can resume adding their important and specialist knowledge to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq Most of the references for the Gradual tree shaping are secondary sources. There was article in the London financial review that mentions the two methods. Aeroponic root shaping This ref for the Aeroponic method, I think is a secondary source. If so then Aeroponic root shaping has both primary and secondary sources. I didn't think to look for secondary sources for the first method, as I had the books. (Thanks for the link I didn't know about this policy) References are hard to find unless you know they exist. I'll look at the ones we already got and see what else I can find in regards to the methods and techniques. Blackash have a chat 11:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for full top ban

Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's what should have happened originally, and when I saw discussion was moving toward a limited ban, I did think about making a comment at the time, but didn't. I wish I did, because dispute continues, and dragging others into the dispute continues. We have over 3 million articles, and this is a low priority one - the amount of attention this is getting is disproportionate to its value and importance. I am committed to truth, accuracy and fairness, and am prepared to spend time on getting that. But I can only give my time where I see a decent return for my investment. This topic is too expensive. I also think that a period of total rest from any involvement by the two main contributors will allow them to put matters into perspective, and return to editing in a year's time with a little more distance and judgement. It will also allow other editors to work on the article without protracted discussion, to see how it can be developed. The important thing to bear in mind, is that there is no haste, and anything done to the article can be undone because everything is stored in history. SilkTork *^YES! 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I bet you guessed what I'd say. As it not that I'm uncivil, rude or off point, but the amount I talk that seems to be a problem, how about this as a comprise: When there is an edit I contest, I will only make 2 comments to any given editor about the contested edit. Blackash have a chat 08:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This has nothing to do with volume of talk it has to do with a commercial and personal COI regarding certain aspects of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Having a potential COI doesn't justify a ban. Please read WP:COI "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited," Martin you have played the COI card multiple times and again I rebut your claims of COI diff of a detailed rebuttal unless you are going to file at WP:COIN, again I ask you to please desist from making such statements. Blackash have a chat 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am not playing any kind of card, I have no reason to. The plainly evident fact is that you have been pressing for changes to the article relating to techniques and names that are commercially and personally important to youself and your business. That is a clear and actual COI.

You and Slowart will always have a potential COI but Slowart seems generally willing to keep away from areas that are of personal and commercial importance. You have refused to do the same. If you want to take this further, by all means go to Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin this is the last I'm going to say on this here, if it is so clear and actual COI put your action where your mouth is and take me to WP:COIN, or drop it. Blackash have a chat 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I told you so. However, I don't feel it is legit to ban people via this sort of process (ie: just making a vote on an article's talk page, bypassing AN/I or COI or whatever). Something about it seems very wrong. If this were to come up in the proper forum, I would support a narrow ban from discussing the title, but not a full talk page ban. Since the only areas of contention are related to the name, a full talk ban seems punitive rather than constructive. AfD hero (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You did indeed tell us so and I agreed with you as you will see. There is nothing whatsoever punitive about my request, indeed it would help the two editors with a commercial interest in this subject return to editing if they would not involve themselves in certain issues which could easily be properly resolved by others.

I have no wish to bypass anything and will take this back to the COI noticeboard if you think that is the right thing to do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain Because I am currently involved in a content dispute over these matters I don't feel it is appropriate for me to vote at this time. However I will say that I think if Blackash and Slowart can agree to Blackash's suggestion of a two comment maximum when conflict arises we will have much fewer problems going forward. Of course I don't think user talk pages or non-controversial editing should be included in this "2 edit rule". It has been a very short time since the last ANI action and I think it would be best to let things cool down before pushing harder sanctions. Colincbn (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is very noble of you to abstain, but, like me, you are not really involved an a content dispute, you are involved in trying to ensure that WP policy on COI is followed. Without editors with a COI we could decide on the content in the proper manner according to WP policy rather than being continually influenced by editors with a a direct business and personal interest in this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As AfDhero, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for a topic ban. --rgpk (comment) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Return to COI noticeboard

A number of editors have expressed the view that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this ban so I propose to take it back to the COI noticeboard, where I would encourage you all to comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter there again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to COI [6] Blackash have a chat 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section link to alternative names, and again with this woody plants

In Duff's diff he states he is "Simplified opening sentence & lead (I hope)" In point of fact he as lengthened the sentence and removed the section link to the alternative names section. He also seems to have an issue with using the word "tree" and has either removed it or changed tree to woody plant. (Last time he was editing here he consistently did this also.)

• Having a link to the alternative names in the lead, when there is a alternative names section on the article seems to be in common use though out wikipedia from my search. So can some one please put the wording alternative names back with the link.
• This woody plant issue, Duff seems to have a real fondness for this term. When we discussed it in the past, he explained his insistence of using this term by stating it is what horticulturist use. More people understand what tree means than wood plant. KISS: Kept It Simple Simon. Can someone please change Duff's creative editing and remove woody plant and put back tree back. Blackash have a chat 14:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this art not apply to woody plants that are not trees? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin don’t you remember your reaction to this wording? I believe you stated it didn’t suggest trees to you, and you suggested using trees, shrubs, and vines instead of woody plant, to Duff and myself. There is a reason the books published on this art use the term tree and not woody plant. You don’t have to explain the word tree to people. Blackash have a chat 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin You have shown that you are an involved editor by yet again placing arborsculprture in front of tree training. I thought the sentence was fine. Tree training first then arborsculpture then pooktre. You have again given weight and promenence to Arborsculpture /Slowart and Reames. Why do you do this? I will use this as an example of your promotion of Reames/Slowart when I take you to Admin.

I apologise I was looking at the talk page history instead of article history. Maybe my comments should be directed to Duff who is doing the same thing of promoting Arborsculpture /Slowart /Reames. The style of editing is similar to Martins, on this article. Duffs previous editing was very pro-arborsculpture, while attacking Blackash and accusing her 'controlling the page' where as in reality Duff was the major contributor between 8/06/10 to 23/7/10. Blackash did not edit during this time, She started editting in late August 2010.

Once wood is set you can no longer shape it as per the art form unless you want to kill it by ringbarking. Why dont you call it Woody tree training.(sarcasm) Martin You are stuffing up this article by your ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject. I apologise againSydney Bluegum (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be time to go to arbitration on the subject of names and other matters of commercial significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin you have not outlined what the matters of commercial significance are.I would like you to follow up the photo of the prunning equipment and where it leads for another commercially significant advertisement. When I follow ot up it leads to Varden a commercial pruning opperation based in Oregan. How close is this to Reames business? How can these be discussed if the topics aren't disclosed? Look at the whole article not just your bias towards Blackash.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole article is dominated by commercial issues. I have no bias towards anyone but I do object to this article becoming a commercial battleground. Slowart has shown willing to withdraw from all commercially sensitive issues such as the article name and practitioners of the art. Arbcom are the final step in dispute resolution and they are able to make binding decisions. If they rule that there is no commercial conflict of interest here I will happily leave the article to others. My only interest here is in promoting WP policy. Other dispute resolution methods have failed to reach any consensus on this subject so I am going to take it to arbcom. I think it should be a fairly straightforward case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Slowart requested that editors re-look the title and other things on 30 March 2011.He also made a comment on what good work you and Colincbn have been doing.I read this as Slowart making requests to you both hence you are an involved editor.I agree you should take this matter to a higher level.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom will probably decline to take the case. AfD hero (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sydney, why do you keep bringing me into it? I have never made an edit anywhere because I was "told to". Every edit I have ever made was because I thought it improved the project. If you remember I opposed banning Blackash from the talk page and I also oppose trying to bring this to ArbCom at this time. I understand why Martin wants to, I just think we should give the current framework more time. Blackash and Slowart have both refrained from editing the article and that is as much as we can ask of them. They are both more than welcome to give their opinions here, but we are under no obligation to make edits based on those opinions. We all must take sole responsibility for the work we do, for good or ill. I do not consider myself anyone's enemy, I do however get the feeling you consider me one. If Slowart likes my work fine, but in all honesty I don't give a rat's ass if he does or not. I edit for WP, no one else. Can you say the same thing? Colincbn (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we could discuss the commercially sensitive issues here and just ignore the comments by Blackash, and Bluegum but I personally find them disruptive to a clear, neutral, and open conversation.

My opinion is that the article is still highly influenced by commercial issues, starting with the title, where we currently have one that means something else but cannot change it without stepping into a commercial minefield, and including the section that looks rather like a collection of small ads for commercial practitioners of the art. NPOV does not mean that we should give equal commercial benefit, or disadvantage, to all these with a commercial interest in the subject, those issues should not influence us at all in writing an encyclopedia. What we write here should be based on WP policy only and those with a commercial or direct personal involvement in the subject should withdraw from all editing and discussion on subjects where there might be any possible COI.

I agree that arbitration is rather heavyweight for the dispute here but I am only here because the fundamental issue of commercial independence of WP is at stake here. I am going to ask again for Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum to agree to withdraw completely from all discussion having any possible commercial or direct personal significance. If they do do agree to that, I think we have exhausted all other forms of dispute resolution and Arbcom is the only way left. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe what you find disruptive is that I point out where and why your logic is faulty according to wiki policies. Blackash have a chat 15:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin Please explain direct personal significance and how this relates to me.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

Treenovation created this chair using the techniques of Aeroponic root shaping.

Plantware have changed their name to Treenovation, go to plantware.org you will see images of this chair plus I know the owners of Plantware. Their site is branded with Treenovation and they own treenovation.com. Fig roots were shaped then planted and this chair is the growing prototype of Treenaovation's method. Can some one please put this in the Aeroponic roots shaping section. Blackash have a chat 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Will those with a potential COI agree to withdraw from discussion on certain topics?

I am going to ask again for Slowart, Blackash, and Sydney Bluegum to agree to withdraw completely from all discussion having any possible commercial or direct personal significance.

I would suggest that they do not take part in discussion of:

The article name

Anything to do with current practitioners of the art

Differences in technique between different practitioners

Anything else where they might have a potential COI

It would be appropriate for the editor who created this section and stated the above to actually sign their edits. At present it appears to be attached to Blackash.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Martin, early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do to quote ".As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. You keep claiming Wikipedia policies are what you follow and yet you seem to be having trouble with this part COI which states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.” I give you this Martin you are trying to pre-empt any content dispute instead of waiting for it to happen. As to your claims of COI, I have and can point to multiple edits, where I have place Wikipedia policies first. Link For a different example: the 3 drawings I gave for the methods in the article don’t you think I could have

1. Drawn one of our trees (pooktre)!
2. I could have branded the files I did draw with the word pooktre. (and I have seen others editors brand photos this way)

But did I do this, Hell No,

1 That could be seen as bias towards pooktre to use one of our trees.

2.1 I don’t believe in forcing our word onto others, so I have the attribution for the use of the drawing to be given the owners of the trees in question.

2.2 Pooktre doesn’t need to build creditability on the backs of other artists, we have plenty of our own.

Martin you have also stated that the consensus of the community is important. Well the consensus at the ANI was to allow me to discuss things. So I will comment but I will make my case and then I will only make 2 comments to any given editor in reply. Martin if you feel this is too much please take it up the dispute ladder. I for one would be pleased to not need to defend myself from your unsupported claims of COI all over the verses noticeboards. Let get this out of the way so we can work on content instead of yapping about editors behavior. Martin since your listing at COI didn’t go anywhere, please stop this COI stuff and discuss real points of content or take it up the dispute ladder. Blackash have a chat 15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly take it to arbcom, I was only trying to save them, and everybody else, a lot of time and effort. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the trolls, edit without compromise! Pick your title and fix the article. Foil the endless argument strategy, be decisive!Slowart (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Slowart/ Reams Instead of making inane comments such as those above perhaps you could put your energy into providing photos of your craft work.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it an art or a craft

I dont think editors should come and make sweeping changes that lower the tone of all involved artists by labelling tree shaping a craft when we have always referred to it as an artform. I also reverted the woody plants inclusion. It gives the impression that tree shaping can be done with formed wood. The editor who made these changes also edits woody plants and girdling(ring barking). Is this a attempt to create other articles that support changes to this article. I believe there is a policy for the type of editing. Is itWP:POINTSydney Bluegum (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I think the reason they want to add the term "woody plants" is that not all the plants that can be used are "trees". For example small shrubs and thick vines could also be used. So adding "woody plants" is more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term "woody plants" is technically more correct. The main disadvantage of that term is that it sounds awkward and most people don't know what it is. As for art vs craft, I'm not sure I see the problem. Shaping trees has elements of both art and craft. AfD hero (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "practice." It is often an art form, but not universally so. Sometimes it is used purely for practical or commercial rather than expresive purposes. --Daniel 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Art is showing something in a new light. A craft has established techniques with followers who practice those techniques. I don't recall any references for craft but I wasn't looking for any either. There are multiple secondary references for art or art-form about varies artists' work within this field. I prefer art but I think the word practice in the lead works. Blackash have a chat 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is usually an art form, but it is also used to build foot bridges and the like, in those cases I don't think it is. I actually got the idea by looking at Painting. --Daniel 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no small shrubs and only two vines (grape and wisteria) listed on the list of plants in the article. Colincbn you stated "small shrubs and thick vines could be used." Is this something you definitely know and have references for or is it something that you think might happen? We must deal with fact not fiction. Something we assume might work such as vines and shrubs, might not. Grape and wisteria may be ok for inosculation but have we any proof that they are being used for this particular application.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As you stated above vines can also be used. Therefore "woody plants" is more accurate. If someone used wisteria to form a mirror-frame would that not be tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn you missed the point. It 's not about tree shaping, it is whether vines are actually used or as you said they could be used. I'm asking are they used or do you think they can be. How do we know wisteria can make a mirror frame. Do we have any proof that vines are being used in this practise? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think I am. The way it is worded now the art/craft is only concerned with trees. If we have wisteria and grape in the list then they should be removed. Or we add "woody plants" or something like it to the description. Note I am not suggesting we take out the word "tree", just that we add non-tree plants as well, to make the wording more accurate. Colincbn (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

When I created the tree list I only added trees that could be referenced to have been shaped by artists in this field. Check here Later Duff wanted to add other types and after a lot of back and forth with Duff, I suggest that maybe trees that had been used for espalier could be listed (as it is possible they would work). Duff then when ahead and listed trees and whatnot from other related fields. After which Duff systemically removed the word tree everywhere (except the title) from the article and replaced with woody plant. Seems like this was [WP:POINT|wiki point]. Shortly after Duff's word change Martin said he must be missing the point of using this wording. IMO this list should be shorten back down to trees that can be referenced as having been shaped for this art. Blackash have a chat 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying anything that is not a "tree" is not part of this artform? Colincbn (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And again I am in no way suggesting we remove the word tree. Colincbn (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, I'm saying let use the references that are about this field, not imported ones. Colincbn in this diff your edit summary states "Nowhere in the article linked is it called a "tree". We don't seem to be reading the same references. I checked the two citations [7] and [8] both of which use tree multiple times, Neither articles use the word plant. Example quote from first link "A species of Indian Rubber tree - botanical name: Ficus elastica". Sooooo, I'm guessing you read a different ref? Anyway the linked refs both use the wording of tree and not plant, please change plant back to tree. Blackash have a chat 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article the wikilink leads to, Ficus elastica: "Ficus elastica, also called the rubber fig, rubber bush, rubber plant, or Indian rubber bush is a species of plant in the fig genus, native to northeast India and southern Indonesia.". Nowhere in that article is the word "rubber tree" used. The word "rubber plant" is used multiple times. Colincbn (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I was thinking about adding info on Iya Valley and their living bridges. But I guess you're saying that is not the same thing as tree shaping since they are made with wisteria. Ok, then we should remove the Indian living bridge stuff too right? Again are you limiting the art to a select group of species? Any works made with other species are not tree shaping? Colincbn (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Colincbn, you really should look at the images at the reference for bridges of Iya Valley the vines are clearly dead, it looks like basket weaving or the grass rope bridges of the Inca (this is not for referencing this is to show you the similarity between the two type of bridges) only using vines instead of grasses.
• What!! Do we use wikipedia for references now? No.... Then use the cited references, for the terms to use in the article. The fig bridges are created with living trees. I'm not saying the bridges are or aren't tree shaping, all I'm saying is use references to decide on terminology. Please change plant back to tree. I believe I've made my point quite clear if you want more clarification please bring it up on my talk page. Blackash have a chat 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No they are not dead, here is a quote from this page "Some people believe that these existing vine bridges were first built in the 12th century, which would make them some of the oldest known pieces of living architecture in the world.". Also as you may remember I am a professional translator of Japanese and this site also specifically says they are currently alive and growing (自生). It seems that in one post you have argued to edit based on what you think a photo looks like, and to not edit based on references in a different WP article when specifically linking to that article!

How about this: I get the feeling you have determined that every change I make is part of some plot to get the article name changed and therefore fight each and every one regardless of what they are. I assure you this is not the case, I edit solely to improve the encyclopedia. The vine bridges are alive, that's why they call them "living bridges". I am not using WP as a ref, I am using all the refs that go into the Ficus elastica article. An article that has never been edited by me, or anyone working on this one (I think). The fact is the rubber plant is just that, a plant. Some may call it a tree, but just as many, if not more, call it a plant. So by being slightly more broad in terminology by saying "trees and woody plants" we are actually being more accurate. I have not and will not start a request to move this article to a new name. If someone else does I will be more than happy to give my opinion but I can't say what it will be until it happens and I can see all the arguments. The prior discussion was near on a year ago and the landscape has changed. I am not editing to remove any wording, nor from a pro/anti stance to any title or the like. You must admit that if someone uses a vine, as they have, to make a piece of art or an object like furniture or bridges, that falls under the subject of this article. So why not word it as such? I honestly don't see why you would fight that. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to mention both "tree" "woody plants" in the intro, but then use "tree" generically as needed in the rest of the article. (Obviously if a part specifically talks about vines or grapes or whatever, then use that instead of "tree" for that sentence) The best is to avoid confusion by being specific where possible (eg, "root", "branch", "trunk", etc). AfD hero (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Colincbn (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Colincbn comments and question

There is one lie and 3 factual mistakes in Colincbn reply to me (Blackash) above. Normally I would re-butt these on the talk page, however I have a self imposed limit of 2 replying comments to any given editor on any one issue on articles’ talk page due to the issues raised at my topic banning here and after. Colincbn is aware of this. I don't appreciate Colincbn's behavior of lying in the above comment. I have brought this to Colincbn's attention on (Colincbn's talk page). If any editor is interested in my views please bring it up on my talk page. In future at my 2nd reply comment, I will make it clearer that I have reached my limit and interested parties can bring the issue to my talk page if further clarification is wanted. Blackash have a chat 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remain civil. I assure you I have not "lied" in any statement I have ever made on WP. If you or anyone else doubts it please start a WP:ANI on me. Colincbn (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn maybe you should have taken your own advice about good faith and being civil. If you mean you didn't intend to mislead others with your comments about my behavior but only exaggerated out of frustration. Then I apologize for using such a strong term as lying. Blackash have a chat 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not exaggerate at all. My statement was 100% true. That is, in fact, how I feel. And while you are not the first woman to accuse me of lying about my feelings, I assure you this time I am being totally honest. Colincbn (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your feelings are based on a distorted perception of whats really happening. The reality is I have questioned/contested close to a 5th of your edits, not all your edits. If in future you choose to make such bald face statements again about my behavior, don't be surprised when I point out where and how your feelings' reality differs from whats really happening. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, you go ahead and do that. Can we focus on content now? Colincbn (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've also replied on your talk page and I've commented there about starting a new section here to give you the refs so you can replace some content on Pooktre, doing that next.Blackash have a chat 05:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the "life partners" part, would you be ok with wording it as "...are Australian artists who live and work together in South East Queensland"? I think this is more encyclopedic. However, if the refs say life partners and you prefer that wording I would not fight it. If you mean the bit about Pooktre People Trees being the first example of trees grown to look like humans it would require a pretty rock solid ref. Especially because the "husband and wife trees" might also be considered "human shaped" in some cases. Colincbn (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not really worried one way or the other about "life partners", from a bio point of view it may be interesting and if you want to put in your suggested change that fine or if you think it better with out, leave it out. As to the sentence you removed about "Pooktre people trees being the first example" I agree with you it would have to be a pretty rock solid ref and the only ref we have is from Richard's 2nd self published book which is no good for 3th party claims, so I wasn't questioning your removal of that either. I've now started a new section about the text I want put back, have a look below. Still in the process of reading our press cuttings, will add the other text I would like replaced, after I finish reading.Blackash have a chat 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is both a method and used generically

In Colincbn's edit diff he is again removing a referenced wording this time an arborsculpture from the following sentence Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics is important to achieving an arborsculpture design, creasing, ring barking, pruning and grafting are part of this technique. His edit summary of quote This holds true for all tree shaping. I also don't want to imply arbo is the dominant term.

• It doesn't imply it is dominant and isn't true for all tree shaping. Understanding a tree's fluid dynamics A person who uses our method or Dr Chris Cattle method doesn't need to understand how the xylem or phloem (fluid dynamics) work to achieve a successful design.
• To be clear the original sentence links Arborsculpture to a series of techniques which results in a method (some of which are unique to Richard Reames's published method). Colincbn is removing cited evidence that the word Arborsculpture is also a method. This is not the first time either diff discussion.
• To demonstrate the original sentence was in context here is the wording from the book. "It's important to understand the fluid dynamics of a tree to understand how to successfully create Arborsculpture designs through grafting, pruning and ring barking." I added creasing as Richard writes about this in detail. I probably should have added bending as well to the sentence. As Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking, creasing and bending are unique to Richard's published method.

Will someone please replace the wording of an Arborsculpture back into the sentence. Blackash have a chat 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to read: "...to achieving a design using this method." I think this addresses your concern without sectioning off diferent aspects of the art under seperate names. After all it is all "Tree Shaping" right? Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think the word "design" is way overused. It may be helpful to switch it up an bit and use synonyms or reword sentences. AfD hero (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I changed the word "design" to "the desired result". Colincbn (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

References for removed content

Colincbn here is the diff I've bold the text Colincbn removed and I would like put back in. Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two people trees, in the Growing Village pavilion at the World's Fair Expo 2005 in Nagakute, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Reference 69 McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times from Tree shaping article covers the fact you removed. Blackash have a chat 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this? Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn we use two trees for each tree person, so this change could be a bit confusing. Blackash have a chat 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peter and Becky exhibited eight of their creations, including two that were trained to grow into the shapes of humans..."

How about this? This way it mentions them as "two creations" without specifically saying how many trees are used. Colincbn (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That address my concern about the potential for confusion. Blackash have a chat 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn could you please add the reference 69 after your new addition. Blackash have a chat 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Colincbn (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Blackash have a chat 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)