User talk:Slowart

Welcome![edit]

Welcome...

Hello, Slowart, 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:

Tree Shaping[edit]

SilkTork hereby awards **The Exceptional Newcomer Award** to Slowart for work on tree shaping related articles. 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working around this Hort and Garden area and related bio's, Tree Shaping Grafting bio's John Krubsack, Axel Erlandson David Nash Can you give me suggestions for improvements, and look over my shoulder sometime? Slowart (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grafting information is good. And you have used references, which is great. I changed the section heading back to what it was because that was more appropriate for the article title, and more helpful for the average reader looking for general information on grafting. Also, we don't link in titles. We either link the first use of the title word (or phrase) in the section, or use a {{main}} template. I put into the Grafting#Approach section a Google Books link. These are useful links, as they take readers directly to the page on-line. It's always worth doing a search on Google Books. I have put a {{find}} tag on the Talk:Grafting page which creates a link straight to a Google Books search for "grafting".

Tree shaping - when linking to a section within an article, we use #. So you'd have "name of article"#"name of section". As in Grafting#Approach.

You're making a good attempt to sort out David Nash (artist) - though you may have taken away some useful material in relation to his education. It would be useful to WP:Wikify the article with sections and internal links.

All in good a good start, though I note that your interest appears to hover around the someone contentious subject of tree shaping. Take care, because there appear to be deep issues there. Look at the Talk:Tree shaping page and read through the dispute section. As you are entering an area in dispute it would be worth pointing out that people have sometimes created what are termed Wikipedia:Sock puppets when there are disputes in order to create the impression they have more support for their views. You'll need to take care with your editing to ensure you don't get accused of being a sock puppet! I'll take a look at your editing now and again. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was appropriate to reveal that you had an account under the name Reames. Well done.

Also, I'm working on a Gardening wiki, with a plant encyclopedia. The general gardening articles could definitely use someone to almost start from scratch to create a cohesive set of how-to articles on things like grafting, pruning, composting, etc, etc. If you're interested, just stop by... Thanks. --RaffiKojian (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community topic ban: Tree shaping[edit]

By community consensus, as established in this discussion, you are topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from articles related to tree shaping. This topic ban does not apply to pages that are not in the main space, such as talk page discussions. If you do not comply with this ban you may be blocked. You can appeal this ban to the community at WP:AN, or to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 09:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool and may peace be with you and yours.Slowart (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Reames's method[edit]

Hey, Slowart we have been contacted by a world wide magazine who want to do a 3000 word article on us and the different tree shaping methods. As you don't like instant tree shaping could you let me know what you like your methods to be called. Blackash have a chat 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, do not contact me, go away, in peace.Slowart (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Erlandson basket.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Erlandson basket.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Yoenit (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the discussion was "Keep, for purposes of PUF, however, one should take care to assess whether this image meets all of the provisions at WP:NFCC." There was a helpful comment from User:Silktork, who indicated that "As with other photographs of 3D art, it's use in Wikipedia is permitted under the law - what is missing is a {{Non-free 3D art}} tag and a completed {{Non-free use rationale}} tag." This is just a note to document those points here, in case any part of those recommendations still remains to be completed. It's a great photo and we want to keep it in the articles it illustrates. Thanks for submitting it & for jumping through the hoops to keep it in! duff 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different techniques in the 'Tree shaping' article[edit]

Richard, do you believe that Blackash's descriptions of the different techniques do not properly describe the methods that you use or have I misunderstood things? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, can you point to the specific spot where Blackash has described my methods ? Slowart (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am thing of the section where Blackash has described different techniques such as 'Instant tree shaping'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instant tree shaping is not on the page any more and looks just fine to me. I do note that Pooktre is still being presented in the lead as a name for the whole art. This business name was added by the owner of the business and is not found in any reliable source. Slowart (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
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.
User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
User:Slowart 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.
The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification of ArbCom ruling[edit]

I have made a Request for clarification of an ArbCom ruling that involves you here. Colincbn (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

If you would like to point out that someone has a Conflict of interest, you can do so, but please try to keep the language civil. This language that you used is not appropriate.[1] See WP:CIVIL. Better would be to keep things in the third person, and to keep comments focused on the article, not the contributor. For example, "I disagree with Blackash's statement of <info>. A better statement would be <alternate wording>. A source to verify this can be found here: <source, or list of sources>." Thanks, --El on ka 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years of much worse language from this editor to me, it's surprising that that comment was considered inappropriate. But don't get me wrong, it about time someone started looking in on the doings around here and for that I'm grateful. Your suggestions that I find sources, however appropriate, suggest I should continue to engage this editor in highly personal and way way to close to the subject editing. I have declared I will not respond to user blackash because, in the past it has only created more and more effort from blackash and friends to "win". FYI Blackash is the creator of pooktre.com and treeshaping.net and has battled here and on blogs for years to eliminate the way Reames and others use the word arborsculpture, team Blackash-Northy-Pooktre by fighting harder for certain wordings or perceptions or in this most recent case to reduce Richard Reames participation from working a year as the growing village world expo pavilions "international coordinator" as hired, to "Team Member" as if the undocumented (at this point) "international coordinator" title was a controversial point. Some pages like a rivals bio, just should not be edited by some editors, don't you think? It's honestly nauseating to me to think I need to search for a good source that proves the point of the position Reames held at expo. I'm burnt out on playing defense. Wikipedia is only fulling to me when I can improve it. Elonka, I'll be on wiki-brake for an indefinite time. Good luck. Slowart (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart has a good point. Blackash has maintained a sustained campaign to discredit the work of Slowart and the name 'arborscupture'. Elonkla, this is the second editor who has walked away from this subject in disgust. When is someone going to believe that there is more going on here than a trivial naming dispute? All it needs is someone to actually look at the facts rather than believe everything they are told.

Slowart, would you mind sending me an email, I could let you know if it is ever safe to come back. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart, it's just not the right perspective to say that looking for sources is "nauseating". Wikipedia runs on sources. Especially when dealing with the biography of a living person, sources are 100% required. Anything that is unsourced, can be removed by anyone. --El on ka 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective is not right, granted. Sure 100% but as you know anyone one, even a thinly veiled single purpose account can challenged the quality of the source, and then there are the notice boards, and then the 3rd opinions and policy points and guidelines until no one wants stick around and just lets it go. Please note that exasperated editors like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griseum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duff and now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colincbn tend to lose perspective and go away in discuss. Not that it's your fault, just that in some cases, like this one, sanctions should be much stronger with real teeth when dealing with this kind long term expression of persistent and blatant COI around this specific subject. I hope you will take a long term special interest in the activitys of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%3Foygul and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sydney_Bluegum who are all good people I'm sure, just misguided as to the proper use of Wikipedia. Slowart (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, it is true that Slowart did use unnecessarily strong language and it is also true that sources are required for WP. I have looked at the sources and they do indeed support Blackash's wording; if they had not done so I would have reverted. However, I think it is quite right to challenge the fact that an editor who has been banned from one topic for having a COI should be allowed to edit the biography of a personal and commercial competitor so freely and in a negative manner. I guess there is nothing in the rules to stop this but I can only hope you will start to see it as part of a bigger picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are editors here with a clear COI. It is also agreed that the edits of all these editors (and others in this topic area) should be carefully watched, to ensure adherence with ArbCom sanctions. I've been watching what Blackash has been saying and doing, and issuing warnings as appropriate. I'd like to think that I am issuing warnings in an evenhanded manner. I'm also pleased that no further bans or blocks have been needed, as most of the editors seem to be making some effort to voluntarily moderate their own behavior. This is a good thing! The best way forward at this point, is via sources. All editors should be very careful to ensure that information on Wikipedia comes from appropriate sources, and that sources are cited wherever possible. Slowart, you are not banned from editing the Richard Reames article, so if you would like to edit it to correct things or to add sources, that's fine. My advice is to edit in a conservative, well-sourced manner, and then there shouldn't be any problems. If a dispute does emerge, then please take it to the talkpage immediately, and we'll figure out where to go from there. I would also encourage all participants to avoid reverts. Instead, if you see something that you disagree with in an article, try changing it to some form of (sourced) compromise wording, and then maybe we can circle in on consensus that way. --El on ka 01:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart have you had time to find the refs yet??oygul (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of focus[edit]

Slowart, please stop focusing on editors. Wiki runs on secondary reliable sources. Speaking of which, have you got the details for the refs needed? By the way, what do you think of the article Blackash put on R R talk page? ?oygul (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for Tree shaping[edit]

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) 12:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM[edit]

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are:

Hobby farm
Raised bed gardening
Sustainable gardening
Urban horticulture
Vermicompost
The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

Sanctions[edit]

Slowart, this diff would seem to be a violation of the arbitration sanctions.[2] The edit summary "camels" is also not particularly helpful. Would you please consider self-reverting? The article has been stable for some time, and I'd rather not stir things up again. --El on ka 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, the article has been stable because all the independent editors left in disgust after a two thirds majority to move the article was inexplicably overturned by a passing admin. I have left it alone just to see what would happen to it. Have a look yourself; it has become the personal promotional vehicle for Blackash, with ?oygul (look at their contribs) standing guard. What grounds are there for keeping the commercial name Pooktre in the article?

If you want to know the relevance of the edit summary 'Camels' just look at the previous few edits, where passing independent editor has removed an obvious commercial plug from the article.

I makes a mockery of the independence of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what "camels" meant, okay. However, Slowart still should not have removed "Pooktre" from the lead, due to the ArbCom sanctions. --El on ka 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom sanctions referred to the article name and to 'arborsculpture' and 'tree shaping'. Pooktre has never been seriously proposed as a name for the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin the fact is Richard Reames has done a COI edit, as he puts us/Pooktre as his rivals, I don't see that we are but he does. Interesting that you used to claim even talking on the discussion page was COI, yet when Slowart does an actual edit that could be seen as COI. Not a letter or word of comment form you about it. Martin I'm going to your talk page to address your accusation. Blackash have a chat 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of Slowart's ban is, "User:Slowart 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." His edit, removing "Pooktre" from the lead of the article, is borderline as to whether or not it is covered by the specific wording of the ban. Different administrators might interpret it different ways, with one admin saying that he wasn't discussing the name, he was just removing one. Another administrator might say that common sense dictates that if he's not supposed to be discussing the name, then he shouldn't be edit-warring to insert or remove names, either. My own determination was to offer a warning, and not a block. However, I would also point out that the Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions in the topic area, so administrators could set other types of restrictions, and/or block for disruption, even if the disruption was not within the letter of the topic ban. Since Slowart (talk · contribs) isn't that active on the project these days anyway, with only this one edit in the last two months, and the article has been stable for some time except for the recent flurry of edits, I opted not to block. If, however, Slowart resumes disruptive behavior, administrators are authorized by ArbCom to simply remove his access to the project. --El on ka 13:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the ban is interpreted strictly and equally for Blackash and Slowart that would be a good thing. We know both these two editors have a direct commercial interest in the subject.

Although the sock enquiry for ?oygul was inconclusive this is a near SPA who is promoting Blackash's position in her absence. What is the correct procedure for dealing with this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, since this is a separate issue, I have replied at your talkpage. --El on ka 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, my understanding was, that the ban, in the end, only covered discussing the issue of names, we were free to and even encouraged to edit the main space. I thought it was weird. My "Camel" comment and edit was intended to simply agree with the fresh neutral editor John Chrysostom (talk · contribs). Truth is, until a discussion ban, no editor could take on the project of making the page neutral...for long. Part of the problem has been the knee jerk reactions passing administrators, who mean well but wish to quickly end any dispute without digging as recently dramatized by the current supervising admin Ellen on John Chrysostom (talk · contribs) talk page. New neutral experienced editors are the only way the forward with this article. I don't want to disrupt anything but the status quo. Slowart (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slowart, you are correct that you are still allowed to edit the article, and to participate in (non-name-related) discussions at the talkpage. For best results, it's probably best to avoid any name-related edits to the article, too. Other editing is fine though. --El on ka 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM[edit]

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)

Semi-talkback at User:JohnChrysostom[edit]

I'll look at the article more in a bit; it's been hectic again now that break is over (that's why I had 2k edits last month), and it's a topic areas I have little knowledge in and don't often read in, let alone edit (I'm generally to be found splayed across the Biblical/Christianity/Theology/Roman History areas of Wikipedia). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, neutral editors with or without knowledge can help this page a lot. You may find the links at the top of the discussion page useful. Where it says "Discussion sub-pages". I'm happy to answer any questions. Slowart (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM[edit]

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on July 1, 2012.
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM[edit]

The current monthly
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on December 1, 2012.
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM[edit]

The current monthly
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are:

The next collaborations will be posted on January 1, 2013.
To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Birch 2006.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Slowart. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

Move[edit]

I have a COI. I wrote 2 self published book on this subject. I coined the word arborsculpture in my first book "how to grow a chair" specifically to unite the field. published in 1995 and titled my second book in 2005 "Arborsculpture". subst:requested move|Arborsculpture|reason=10 years have passed since a consensus was not reached and an COI editor did some canvassing so "Arborsculpture" as a title did not get a fair shake. Returning this page to the original title of arborsculpture may start to solve some the page issues. Those discussion and disputes were based on WP:OLDSOURCES. According to Wiki policy Disputes regarding article titles 10) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.” Arborsculpture is precise, WP:PRECISE “Tree Shaping” is not precise, it is mostly assumed to mean the overall shape of the canopy of a tree. #treeshaping on social media is more used by arborist to mean pruning of limbs. Over the last decade Secondary academic/ science references have become abundant for the term “arborsculpture”. A literal text book example of arborsculpture in italics. page 442 section 4. Creation of Unusual Growth Forms. https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/download/39857/PDF

Side by side comparison for current title "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=arborsculpture

https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms="tree+shaping"

https://cyberleninka.ru/search?q=arborsculpture&page=1

https://cyberleninka.ru/search?q="tree+shaping"&page=1

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=arborsculpture&oq=arborsculpture

Notice that from a sampling of the first 40 results, approximately 80% of results are not on the topic of the Tree Shaping page . The first 6 give the impression that "tree shaping" is the descriptive term used in commercial fruit orchards and is also used in software descriptions. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q="tree+shaping"&btnG= Slowart (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021

You would do better in the searches if you put tree shaping in quote marks as "tree shaping" in order to eliminate random results. Google scholar returns 91 results for arborsculpture, and currently 912,000 for tree shaping. However, even when put in quote marks it returns 464, which is rather more than arborsculpture. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork When I look at "Tree Shaping" in quotes on Google scholar I also get 464. Browsing the quality of the returns I see first page 2 out of 10 are on topic, page 2 had 3 or 5 out of 10 on topic, page 3 has 2 out of 10 on topic page 4, 0 out of 10. All together out of 40 hits on google scholar, I see 9 on topic for "Tree Shaping". When arborsculpture is searched, all 40 of the first hits on topic. Arborsculpture is concise and precise. Slowart (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart, SilkTork, I'm not familiar with the historical dynamics of this article: Richard Reames, although I did recently perform significant improvements to it. (I did, however, become recently aware of the Tree shaping article and became somewhat familiar with the dramatic history of that article.) If one or both of you could please list in plain English changes or improvements (like in a numbered list of tasks) I am happy to help out. (Because I don't really understand the Move that is mentioned above. Thanks and best, The Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, even though I have made edits to Tree shaping, I'm not a contributor - I was involved for dispute resolution. After working on the article for a while, I did consider if it could be brought to GA level (something I have done occasionally on articles where I resolved disputes, such as Kilgour–Matas report); however, after considering it for a while, I felt it would not be a rewarding experience. I have no wish to get involved in editing the article. The move that is mentioned above is a long running dispute, and I'm pretty sure it was that same move dispute which brought me to the article in the first place - yes, here: Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move_from_Arborsculpture_to_Tree_Shaping. Looking back at my comment then, and Slowart's agreement with it, it may be worth suggesting it once more: Leave Tree shaping as it is - a generic article on all aspects of tree shaping, from the living bridges of the War-Khasi people of India, to Reames' arborsculture; but create a separate article just for Reames' arborsculture. So, Tree shaping would mention Reames and arborsculpture, much as it does now: Tree_shaping#Richard_Reames, but provide a link to Richard Reames and arborsculpture (which would not redirect to Tree shaping, but would have a hatnote directing those who wish to read about other types of tree shaping to the tree shaping article). SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you for the quick response, it helps to clarify things. I actually had the same thought as what you suggest here. When I was doing research to improve the Richard Reames article, there were quite a few references to Arborsculpture in scholarly journals, books, magazines and news stories - certainly more enough to to support a new article. I think I would enjoy working on it, and I volunteer to create it. I even have some time this afternoon to get it started. Thanks again for the timely and thoughtful guidance. Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I have a quick technical question: Because Arborsculpture currently redirects to Tree shaping, should I simply undo the redirect before I create a new article with the name Arborsculpture? Or should that be speedy deleted or what? I don't want to break anything or cause drama. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone - my suggestion would be to create a section on Arborsculpture in the Richard Reames article, and when ready, split it out to a standalone article on the arborsculpture page replacing the redirect with the new article and a hatnote pointing people to the Tree shaping article. Then check incoming links to arborsculpture to make sure that the links are intended for Richard Reames' version of tree shaping, and not to tree shaping in general. For example, one link comes from Sculpture, which should remain directed at Tree shaping as the intention there is to allow readers to look at all the forms of sculpting with trees, not not just Richard Reames' version. It's important that the new article should focus on Richard Reames' version of tree shaping, and not just be a duplicate of the Tree shaping article with a different name. It would be useful to clarify in the lead that arborsculpture is a form of "tree shaping" so readers can put it in context, but to allow the wikilink to suffice as an explanation of what tree shaping is, because the term itself is fairly explanatory, and people can then follow the link for more information. However, comparisons between arborsculture and other forms of tree shaping can be made in order to clarify exactly what it is that is unique about Reames's work in the realm of tree shaping. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link on Sculpture. SilkTork (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, and Slowart, I have followed up on the suggestion above to create a section in the Reames article on Arborsculpure; I then split it out (via the redirect page) into a standalone article on Arborsculpture. I've modified the content to fit better into the context of a stand alone article. The new article (which is still in a formative stage) has a very different focus than the Tree shaping article. It is centered on art historical, environmental and ecological art practices. I am hoping that this article can stay focused on the historical, social and theoretical underpinnings and not become a list of various contemporary practioners and their methods and individual naming conventions for the practice. It is still under construction, however I've amassed in a file on my computer containing several additional sources from academic journals, newspapers and books. Thank you very much for suggesting this, SilkTork, and once the article is further along, I'll incorporate some of the other suggestions for improvement mentioned above. It's been fun to work on, and I look forward to continuing along this journey, a walk in the woods filled with twisty trees. Netherzone (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone. You appear to have misunderstood "create a separate article just for Reames' arborsculture" and have made a WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a contentious and sensitive topic area you have entered, and creating that article is not helpful, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your intentions are no doubt good, but you appear not to understand the issues here. I have reverted. In the circumstances it would be better, if you wish to try again, to create the proposed article as a draft, and invite those involved to have a look before moving into mainspace. SilkTork (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, Thank you for your message. I read and re-read your instructions above several times to be certain that I understood what you were suggesting. The article I created was completely different than the Tree Shaping article, focusing on arborsculpture specifically rather than tree-shaping. Yet, somehow it seems I misunderstood what your recommendations. For that, please forgive me. I am wondering if you could you tell me how I might be able to recover, if only for my own interest if not for the encyclopedia readership, the content that I just spent the better part of the day creating? I would appreciate that very much. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree shaping article is about all aspects of shaping trees, artistic and practical. An article on arborsculpture would be about Richard Reames' method of tree shaping only, so the history would start there. The article would be about Reames' specific method of tree shaping, and how it differs from other methods. And it could include those artists who have been inspired by Reames such that they copy his methods. It should not be an alternative to Tree shaping which (intentional or not) would serve as fuel for the debate as to which name to call the act of shaping trees. And we should not be indulging in editorial original research as to which types of acts of shaping tree are to be called "arborsculpture" and which are to be called "tree shaping" - that is not what Wikipedia is about. The term "tree shaping" has been around since at least 1850 to refer to all forms of shaping trees. The term "Arborsculpture" is more recent, as it was coined by Reames. We don't wish Wikipedia to get involved in the debate as to which name to use, and certainly not take sides. So, for the general article on shaping trees we stick with the longest used, most widely used, most neutral, most cited, and most non-personally associated term, which is "tree shaping". An article on "arborsculpture" should not be (albeit unintentionally) promoting the use of the term arborsculpture as a general replacement for "tree shaping". It could, though, describe Reames work, and how he coined the term. I hope that helps. And sorry if I was not clearer earlier. SilkTork (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree shaping page should be about all aspects of shaping trees, artistic and practical. But it's not, if it were it would cover all aspects of this overly broad term. Most common usage or the average person on the street thinks Tree Shaping is like shaping the branching structure of trees into fit in a residential setting in a normal residential use. Agree tree shaping should really be about pleaching, topiary, espalier, bonsai and shaping the overall canopy of trees. The one and only "debate" was brought to wikipedia by one unabashed editor/practitioner with clear COI who has an ax to grind about the word arborsculpture coined in 1995. What did the term refer to in 1850? I assume it had nothing to do with grafting branches together, I'd like to be wrong. Slowart (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is clearly not finished. I did contemplate some time ago working on it to bring it to GA standard, but realised that it had a long way to go. With your knowledge, Slowart, you could help work it toward covering more aspects of the term. I am unsure what was understood by "tree shaping" in 1850 - I took that date from ngrams - which, looking again, gives a date of 1862. Ngrams isn't an exact tool, but it certainly gives indicators. It can give false positives, and it is highly likely that many of those finds for "tree shaping" would be a little way off what is intended as the topic for our Tree shaping article. How about having a discussion on Talk:Tree shaping as to the focus of the article - what would be most appropriate to include and exclude. See WP:TOPIC, Wikipedia:Scope and Wikipedia:Out of scope, Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Relevance of content for some guidance on how to decide on the scope/focus of an article. It's not an exact science, and is best approached by discussion. I would be willing to moderate the discussion. SilkTork (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that responseSilkTork, O.K. I'll try absorbing the links you provided, that may take me a little while. If the majority of links on google scholar, ngrams or any other compilers hit's, indicate a topic or practice that is a little way off, or way way off what is intended at tree shaping, do you think the article should be expanded to include these other topics? Slowart (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point at which a topic can be covered under one title, or needs to be covered under two or more is always a little tricky. There is no exact science, and decisions are best reached via consultation of the sources and discussion. Sorry to give you more stuff to read, but referring to and following guidelines and policies is the best way of operating on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Ambiguous subjects, Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Splitting, and Wikipedia:Content forking. At the moment I would regard Tree shaping as the parent article for sub-articles on pleaching, bonsai, espalier, and topiary; and arborsculpture could also be a sub-article if it could be sufficiently defined and described as distinct from general tree shaping by independent reliable sources. An article on arborsculpture which mainly mirrors Tree shaping, but using the name arborsculpture instead of tree shaping, would not be allowed. There would need to be a distinct difference shown - I'm not sure that using the name arborsculpture to refer in general to artistic shaping of trees rather than practical would be sufficient, as topiary, penjing and bonsai are also regarded as artistic shaping of trees. SilkTork (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this discussion to Talk:Tree shaping for record keeping as the contents are relevant there. SilkTork (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal[edit]

I noticed that an image of yours was removed from the Richard Reames article. Are you in agreement that it should be removed? Or if there is another image that you think would be a better fit for the article, please upload to Commons and post the link, and I will add it to the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really try not to think about that page Richard Reames I'm a little too close to the subject to have a good view. I have always thought the word choices could be more encyclopedic with better grammar. Thanks for asking for picture, here is one I'd like to see on the page. [[3]] Slowart (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A heartfelt thanks to you Netherzone ! Now, instead of never thinking about that page, I'll be able take some pride in it, due to your fine work. Slowart (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart, it certainly needed an overhaul, the writing was awful. Glad to be of service to the encyclopedia. If there is another picture, perhaps of the bench w/o the person, I could group the photos into an image gallery. Just a idea that came to me when I was working on it. Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

	Have a happy New Year filled with light and magic!
	Hi Slowart, Best wishes that the new year brings peace, prosperity, health and happiness. Thank you for everything you do for the encyclopedia and this community. Image: New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, Utagawa Hiroshige, woodcut, 1857 Netherzone (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]