User talk:Blackash

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Welcome!

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

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

Pooktre

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

Tree Shaping

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

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

[1]

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

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

[2]

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

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

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

[3]

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

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

[4]

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

Recommendation: remove the sentence.

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

De-orphan attempts

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

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

You may want to revert edit

Blackwash: You made an edit here on the Talk page of Tree shaping, in a discussion about article naming. I think the arbitration decision here says that is prohibited (see details immediately above in your Talk page). I suggest that you remove your comment, before anyone files an arbitration enforcement report, which could increase your sanctions. Cheers, --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Blackash's edit, which is borderline, but I don't think is a clear violation (of course, other administrators may disagree). Based on the discussion here though,[6] my interpretation is that simply adding references to a subpage is okay, and that Blackash (and the other sanctioned editors) are allowed to make a single statement with their own opinion on the naming issue. Other than that though, they should probably stay out of the discussion. Blackash, does that sound like a reasonable course of action? --El on ka 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackash for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result Blackash and ?oygul are

Unrelated, and I cannot find anything relating to ?oygul. -–MuZemike 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive links

I'll have to sort out the archive links later. [7] [8]

Comment collapsed in Request for Move

I collapsed a comment you posted in the Requested Move within the Talk page of Tree shaping. It appeared to violate the ArbCom ban that prohibits you from commenting on the titles of articles in that topic area. The Request for Move is clearly addressing the title of that article. This is the second time you have, in my opinion, violated the ban. You appear to be genuinely interested in the topic, so I won't bring this up at Arbitration Enforcement now; but I might do so in the future if your behavior persists. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that the comment violated the ban, and have posted as much at the article's talkpage, with my reasoning. --El on ka 03:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Blackash, hi, thanks for replying in the RM discussion. Your comment is a bit borderline though, since it takes some swipes at other editors. I am currently mulling whether to edit your post myself, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to do it first? Would you please consider editing your comment, so it does not refer to other editors, if at all possible? Thanks, --El on ka 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka I removed the Duff comment. I combined Slowart parts into one. It is very relevant that Slowart hasn't given any links or refs in the last 3 years that disprove the claim about no artists use etc.... Thank you for letting me modify my own comment. Blackash have a chat 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy response, but please, be cautious in saying anything about the naming issue in any venue, even here on your talkpage. The third sentence in your reply here was not necessary. --El on ka 02:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification of ArbCom ruling

I have made a Request for clarification of an ArbCom ruling that involves you here. Colincbn (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Blackash, in the Tree shaping case, you were "topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject."

However, today you made several comments in naming discussions. Some of your comments were borderline in that you were not specifically discussing a name; however, you were definitely participating in the naming-related discussions, which could be considered a violation.[9][10] ArbCom sanctions aside, these messages where you attacked Martin Hogbin were not acceptable.[11][12] Please be aware that the article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions, so even if you are staying within the restrictions from the ArbCom case, you could still be subject to sanctions if an administrator regards your comments as disruptive in any way. Based on your comments today, a block could have been issued on your account, but I am opting instead to give you a final warning. In the future, you must not only stay within the restrictions established by ArbCom, but also keep your comments at the article talkpage focused on article content only, and not on other editors. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --El on ka 03:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "Plant"

First, here in Japan there are lots of examples of twisted bamboo artwork, very much like Axel E's work (like the stuff these guys sell [13][14], note this was just what I got after a quick google search, I have seen much better stuff here). Also there are the living wisteria bridges in Iya Valley [15]. These both conform to what this article is about without being made of trees. So because all trees are plants but not all plants are trees it seems more accurate to use the word "plant". Colincbn (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please remember I think "Tree Shaping" is a perfectly good name for the art-form, just not the article at this time. If we are going to use a descriptive phrase it should be as inclusive as possible so it covers all examples. The name of the art does not need to be as accurate, it just needs to be in general usage. Colincbn (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your query on Elonka's talk: When deciding on a descriptive phrase it is important that it be inclusive and accurate. The refs for what names the art is being called don't really matter much because we would be deciding not to use a "name" at all, just a description. Since there are examples of non-tree plants being used, and even if there were not there could be at some point, the more inclusive term "plant" is more appropriate. Arguing that only "tree" is acceptable is essentially arguing that anything made of a non-tree plant does not fall under this art form. Colincbn (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growingvillage.com

Blackash, could you please review your edit here?[16] You apparently removed a link to a valid archive, and replaced it with a link to a site that no longer exists. Could you please doublecheck this? Thanks, --El on ka 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I added the wrong link in the first place then thought I had added the right link. I've fixed it now though. Blackash have a chat 02:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please review our reliable sources guidelines. None of the references you added to Hungarian Shaolin Temple were reliable. They have been removed. We cannot use blogs or personal websites as sources. In the future, please find sources that meet our sourcing policy. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to these guidelines. I'm aware that the sources I supplied would not be considered strong references. I was using them as a jumping board hoping they would help me find reliable published sources. I've haven't found anything yet and maybe this article should be merged but nothing seems to fit. What do you think? Blackash have a chat 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for Tree shaping

Slowart, do you know which artists work is used in the following ref. Article title:Re-Envisioning Our Environment

"...using a process known as tree shaping." "...allowing tree shapers to create anything..."

Written by Russ Baker, Published by Business Insider Oct. 6, 2011 Article about different forms of tree shaping and how we can change the world.

I'm discussing it here ?oygul (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited A.D.O.R., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening invitation

Hello, Blackash:

Thank you for your contributions to Horticulture– or Gardening–related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a WikiProject to improve horticulture and gardening articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics.

If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder images

Hi,
I notice you have inserted placeholder images to a number of biographies. While this was common practice a few years ago it was deprecated after community discussion, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. If you disagree with the outcome please start a new discussion first.
Thanks, Amalthea 11:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I just keep adding info boxes. Blackash have a chat 04:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions reminder

Blackash, as a reminder, your ArbCom-imposed topic ban says, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.". Your recent comments at Talk:Tree shaping [17] appear to me to be a violation of your ban. Things have been quiet at the article for awhile, so I'm not inclined to immediately start handing out blocks, but please consider this your only warning. If you continue to post comments related to the name of the topic, your account access may be blocked from Wikipedia. --El on ka 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Elonka, I have already added some more to the talk page before I saw this message. If I've violated sorry I'll step back from the lead discussion. Blackash have a chat 04:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discussion is probably okay, and outside the narrow scope of the topic ban. Just please don't participate in the "names" discussion, thanks. --El on ka 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it Blackash have a chat 04:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]