User talk:Blackash/Archive 1

Re: Please explain
Hi, Blackash. I've never edited that page before. If you're refrring to this edit, then you want to speak with User:His Wikiness. – ClockworkSoul 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Person-tree.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Person-tree.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment splitting
Please don't split people's comments as you did in this edit. You took someone's comment and added your own text in between, making it difficult to determine who said what. Also, new comments go down at the bottom, not immediately after the previous comment. This helps to maintain chronological order, and to maintain a natural flow. Thanks. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also take issue with your comment splitting, as you did in this edit of mine, as one recent example of several other recent examples on the same talkpage. Please respect other editors' ability to make sense of everyone's comments in the proper order. Thanks. Duff (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

re:Bodger
Cool. Look, I'm more than happy for other people to edit me, or articles I contribute to- I won't get all precious like some wikinerds. A Good Day to you Sir or Ma'am.TaStarstylers (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tree shaping WP:COI
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.. A conversation about this issue has been initiated at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be a real person and sign inBlackash (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a real person (not the first either) and here is another one: You are affiliated with most of the people, places, and things you have edited about on Wikipedia.  You have a conflict of interest.  In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).


 * Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.


 * For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.


 * Finally, please stop editing at both the article and talk pages at Tree shaping, arboriculture, and all related articles, including your repeated efforts both on and off-wiki to both initiate and inappropriately influence debate on the many issues surrounding these pages. You have a clearly established COI and have proven yourself/yourselves repeatedly unable to to contribute from a NPOV. Duff (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A polite appeal
If you take the time to read WP:COI you should clearly see it's time for you to step away from the tree shaping article. Wikipedia is a community garden with rules. When someone enters and starts planting and pruning without consideration for what's in place, the message sent is "I don't care about this garden. I don't care about this community.  I have an agenda and tough luck for everyone else." Don't be that guy. Be a good person and show respect for the policies (such as the WP:COI policy) that 1,000s of people have worked together to form over years of collaboration. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Watermarks
Hi. Per WP:WATERMARK we don't use watermarks in images here. Could you upload an unmarked copy of File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg? Otherwise the current image will just be cropped to remove the lettering. Much thanks. And nice stool, if that is yours :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a nice stool, but it not one of ours I put it up with Dr Chris Cattle permission. It may take a few days to replace it with a unmarked image. I will work on it. Blackash (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've cropped a couple of images you uploaded to remove the watermarks. Smartse (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Research about Tree shaping
Hi, Just wondering how your research is going. Blackash  have a chat 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't done it. I will get onto it now. Thanks for the reminder.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sig
Hi. I suggest that you remove the "font-size" code from your custom signature. Forcing font sizes is poor for general WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and can irritate other users because it makes your username links appear far larger or smaller than surrounding text (depending on how they have their individual browsers/systems set). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Blackash   have a chat 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture
Hello. Consensus has been reached and you may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. I think that would be appropriate at this juncture. Duff (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox
I was looking at your sandbox, after following the link you put on the Tree shaping talk page, and I noticed some typos. I Don't know how the naming issue is going to work out, but if you don't mind I would be happy to correct any typos I see in your SB in the hopes those sections will eventually make their way into the article. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colincbn, and thanks that be great if you would fix my typos. Blackash  have a chat 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I went through once and changed a few places. I think a section like this covering the different methods used in tree shaping/arborsculpture/whatever it is we are talking about/;-) could be a great addition to the article. Colincbn (talk)

Thanks, you have definitely improved the flow of text and made it more readable then it was. People are always asking us about the methods of shaping trees. Blackash  have a chat 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries (^_^) I did not even know about this craft two days ago, now I think I might pick it up someday! And as far as the name thing goes I really don't mind what it ends up as, I'm just pointing out what I feel is the most logical interpretation of WP policy. It might be best to have a long name like I mention on the talk page and cover Pooktre and Arborsculpture under that in an equal way. But the "first name wins" clause is a strong argument, however that might mean a separate article for the broader art form is needed and the current one goes to RR's method exclusively. Then someone starts a merge thread or AfD and.... on and on it goes.... Colincbn (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disscussion with Duff

 * Nobody wants to talk about anybody's behavior outside wikipedia, so please keep all of your personal and professionally related comments about your professional rivals, including half-stated innuendos, to yourself. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmm I didn't start talking about other's behavior in point of fact I refrained from doing so above, I also notice that you have not made this point to editors talking about my behavior outside of Wikipedia. (Maybe because they agree with you about arborsculpture?)
 * Which behaviors of yours are you referring to, and which editors? Please provide diffs.  Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let start with you Duff see section for Blackash ]]  have a chat 03:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your website is your website, and you can indeed say whatever you find appropriate, on it. However you may not link anything in the Tree shaping article or any other articles to your website.  That is WP:SPAM, and it won't be tolerated. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked pooktre web site, Dan ladd, Dr Chris Cattle and other's web sites to the tree shaping article in the external links. When an editor came though and pointed out that these links don't meet Wiki policy, I didn't argue to have Pooktre put back in. I did notice that Richard's site about Arborsculpture was removed, and is now back due to your edits. Blackash   have a chat 02:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not accurate. His site is a reference for his bio.  Your site is a reference for your bio.  It has been established by policy, consensus, and RSN that those citation uses are appropriate, and they are being used in that way. As for the external links, did you look at the diff?  Your site and his site are both there, and my edit summary acknowledges, they are useful links.  What is the problem?Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * www.pooktre.com was also a reference for our bio, at the time those links were removed. Instead of keeping that reference, and puting www.pooktre back. You changed the reference www.treeshapers.net, which actually has less info about us than www.pooktre.com Blackash   have a chat 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You may not make accusations that other editors are lying or have lied, as you have repeatedly done to multiple editors, here Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 4 [sp] at 7:55 pm, 7 February 2010, Sunday (4 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−8), here Talk:Tree shaping at 7:03 pm, 29 April 2010, Thursday (1 month, 27 days ago) (UTC−7), here Talk:Tree shaping at 11:21 am, 23 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−7), and here Talk:Tree shaping at 12:43 am, 23 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−7) That is not WP:CIVIL and no editors appreciate it.Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my understanding it is not a problem to make accusations as long you can back them up, which I do. Blackash   have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL again, for comprehension. Your understanding, as expressed above, is faulty.  Furthermore, there have been no lies, as far as I can tell, and you HAVEN'T backed up those allegations.
 * Let start with you Duff see section for list Blackash ]] have a chat 03:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are consistently POV pushing, as evidenced by your continued insistence, unsupported by any reliable sources or facts whatsoever and over what is now a period of YEARS, that a)arborsculpture is a method, and b) arborsculpture is a neologism and c) arborsculpture leads directly to Reames; this despite having been repeatedly, conclusively, and decisively proven incorrect on all 3 counts, with consensus reached at many points to basically ignore your line of reasoning. Your recent bullying of other editors participating in the naming discussions is a good example of what I am referring to, but examples can be found throughout the archives, dealing with multiple issues. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm interesting spin you put on my discussions on the talk page. Duff you are the one who makes broad sweeping generalisations and when asked for more details will say things like all oh I was mistaken, or "my stupidity manufactured evidence or no reply at all. When I make a point I back it up with links and Wikipedia policy, thus giving other editors the info and not making them except my version. Blackash   have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * a)arborsculpture is a method. Yes published books which give a process of shaping trees, or do you think a book title How to grow a chair then doesn't in fact give a process?
 * b) arborsculpture is a neologism. Yes it is please read Neologism for the definition and WP:NEO which states why we don't use them and why they are not to be than title of an article
 * c) arborsculpture leads directly to Reames, search arborsculpture and it leads straight to Richard Reames. The fact you don't agree and will repeat the same broad generalizations without backing up your views with links to policies doesn't mean they're right. There are other editors who believe Arborsculpture is a neologism and that it is an issue that Arborsculpture is not a neutral enough term to be used as the title for the article as can be seen in your recent survey of moving Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. The fact that you do not like the results doesn't change the facts. Requested move Blackash   have a chat 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I am mistaken, I admit that I am mistaken. Do you expect something else?  I expect that courtesy and level of self-awareness from you as well.
 * Concerning your neologism argument, I've read the policy carefully, and I'll quote Quiddity, as he expressed very clearly a view that I and other editors share, to wit: "The term "arborsculpture" has been widely used for over a decade, in reliable sources, from journals to grad-papers to books to articles. Compare with Snowclone for example (term coined in 2004, but widely used in reliable sources, and hence accepted)." and "WP:NEO is not relevant here. The word arborsculpture is provably accepted, by all the usage in reliable sources listed previously, and also, this article is not on the word "arborsculpture" itself. NEO is primarily about delineating the appropriateness of articles like Truthiness and Jihobbyist where the article is about the word itself)." I know it doesn't match your wishes, but it is factual, and there is strong consensus for it.  You say you respect the opinions of other editors, and of consensus, but in practice, you bully up the same tired disproven arguments again and again.  It's pretty tedious to edit with you two in the room, and you aren't supposed to be there doing what you are doing.  Do you get this at all? (Duff's comment)
 * Wikipedia has clear policy WP:NEOfor a word to not be a neologism it needs reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. To date the sources are using the term. Blackash   have a chat 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly submitted questionable images, with questionable copyrights, watermarks of your own company, and various other publication problems. You have fought for their continued inclusion beyond what's even reasonable. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once I submitted questionable images without the owner's permission, when he removed them citing copyright, I stated that he was right and I didn't realise he would have a issue about it, and I never tried to put them back. I didn't know about water makes and I have now removed all water marks from our images as requested. Ummm one request for you to put our cleaned images up is hardly a fight.  Blackash   have a chat 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain this: File:Chair1.jpg Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the artist, it's not a tracing. I drew this with my own hands. It is representation drawing of Richard Reames living bench chair. As the drawing is based on a real arborsculpture I thought it should be credited to Arborsculpture.com. Blackash   have a chat 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are two people editing under a single username, a fact which you have acknowledged many times in the talkpage and archives of it. This is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia WP:ROLE and I am calling your attention to it again because this too has to stop.Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I Becky Northey am the only person who knows the password or uses this account. When Pete and I both agree on a point I'm making, I will use the we. I sometime type straight in (this is usually when I make the most mistakes with spelling and grammar), sometimes I get Pete to check my writing (he usually picks up that I leave ' out and the small words that help sentence makes sense.) I also use dictating software. So are you saying I shouldn't talk to my life partner and I shouldn't get Pete to check my writing? If Pete was editing with his own account you would then be accusing us of trying to over weight our POV. Blackash   have a chat 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are misinterpreting, where there is no room for interpretation really. It's very direct. I am saying, please read WP:ROLE.  You and he need separate accounts if you are both going to edit wikipedia, and there can really be no excuse for non-disclosure of who's who at this point, so overweighting could not be a problem, unless either of you, or both were violating the rules of WP:COI, which you are both doing, NOW. Neither of you is permitted to edit outside the policies clearly articulated at WP:COI or WP:ROLE.  You both have a very strong WP:COI and must follow the rules surrounding that. Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have conducted and admitted conducting an off-wiki 500-member email list announcement to bring in single-purpose account editors who will support your POV, also strictly prohibited.Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes a newbe mistake in Jan 2009 when the article name was first changed from Arborsculpture to tree shaping. Blackash   have a chat 04:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you keep saying, but the fundamental problem with that and what makes it seem so disingenuous, is that you weren't new.


 * Yes an editor with less than 100 editors under their belt. To date I now have 2000 edits, so it not time that creates experience but actual editing. Blackash   have a chat 10:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have conducted, have admitted conducting, and continue to conduct an on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the use of the word arborsculpture in any context and instead direct the world to your own website, where your supposedly superior methods to those you purport to be those of another artist, and your still-pending book on the topic, can be pushed. Your sandbox amplifies this approach clearly.  I don't know what policy might cover all these activities, but they are distasteful and a completely improper use of Wikipedia to support your own commercial interests.  Shame on you both. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no campaign on Wikipedia I have repeatedly asked why Arborsculpture can not have two meanings one generic one and one linked specifically to a method bio/Bio and Hoover/hoover for example. Here is my standard comment off Wikipedia quote "Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Link to Wikipedia Tree shaping. You may be also interested in visiting this website www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world." Please note tree shapers is about tree shapers from around the world with out branding of Pooktre over other artists . You quote from above "Nobody wants to talk about anybody's behavior outside wikipedia, so please keep all of your personal and professionally related comments about your professional rivals, including half-stated innuendos, to yourself." Clearly you want this to apply only to me and not yourself or editors that agree with your POV. Shame on you Duff.  Blackash   have a chat 04:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is false. You have stalked the word arborsculpture on and off wikipedia, and you continue to do so today.  That is how you caught my attention in the first place, if you'll recall, at arboriculture, in the see also section.  You may wish that arborsculpture had two meanings, like Hoover/hoover, but your wishing and advocating does not make it so.  It is a generic word, coined specifically as a generic word.  I have seen your 'standard comment' and many of your not-so-standard comments, involving the word 'inferior', if that rings a bell, in a godawful lot of different places.  While you might see this as perfectly innocent and justified: disparaging a professional rival, redirecting interest to your website, and pinning it on a faulty decision at Wikipedia, is just really apalling and a complete violation of both the letter and the spirit of WP:COI. It is, to quote another editor, a huge 'FUCK YOU' to the entire wikipedia community.  It is probably your most serious violation, and you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable.  As for other editors, on this type of off-wiki behavior, I've never seen anything like it before.  I certainly have never, and would never do this. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Duff you just ignore any evidence that goes contrary to your views. Blackash   have a chat 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have stated clearly and repeatedly, in effect, that your only objective here is to not be branded by the word arborsculpture. I and other editors have far broader objectives than yours, and you have wasted a LOT of our editing time (and your own). Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never said my objective is not to be branded by arborsculpture, what I have stated is I don't want our art Pooktre branded by a word that has a method associated with it or that leads to one person. Which arborsculpture does. Blackash   have a chat 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That is false also. That is precisely what you have stated. Both here [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrevan&oldid=340145496] and here Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 4.


 * I, too, am seriously considering bringing these issues up at both the conflicts of interest noticeboard and WP:RFC/USER, at the very least.  I intend to pursue the matter through to its resolution, just as, apparently, do Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, and likely several other exhausted editors on the page.  Step back now, please.  State clearly that you are both doing so, and then do so, and let the rest of us get back to work.  Otherwise we are all going to waste a shipload more of valuable editing time pursuing formal resolution, you are going to be delayed even further from completing your book and pursuing your artistic interests, and you will likely be even less pleased with the outcome than you are now. Duff (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do so again but please follow the layout rules this time Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Rules not how you did it here [RFC:Tree shaping editorial conflict.] Blackash   have a chat 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Not sure I take your point here, if there is one, and I don't know what you mean by 'again.' I've never filed an RfC/U before against anyone, including you.  I followed directions to the letter on the recent RfC, but please do note that it was not an RfC/U.  Still, I may well have made some mistake of which I am currently unaware.  No one else mentioned anything about the layout, including the closer, and including you.  I used the template provided, so... what's your issue? Duff (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Arboriculture
Please cease your inappropriate exercise of ownership of this article too. You are word-stalking, with a clear WP:COI and a long and well-documented history of similar behavior on Tree shaping. You are editing in defense of your own commercial interests and this is not allowed at Wikipedia. You have been warned repeatedly, and have chosen to ignore multiple warnings from multiple uninvolved editors. As for my POV, everyone has a POV. Mine is neutral as I have no commercial interest in the subject whatsoever. Yours is not, in either location, because you are covered in the article and do indeed have a very direct commercial interest in the subject and a real-life (un)professional dispute rising to the level of a serious grudge against, a professional rival, who is also covered in the article and who happens also to be a fellow editor, to boot. It's really serious, what you're doing, and you don't seem to be able to either recognize it, acknowledge it, or stop yourselves. Duff (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment is rather ironic considering who is coming from. We have been informed who you are Duff, you are much more closely tied to the commercial interests of arborsculpture then you let on. We were so informed some time ago. We have been following SilkTork advice in focus on the editing not the editors. I reply to your comments above in due course when I have the time waste, but I'm guess you already know the answers. Blackash  have a chat 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there was no irony intended. I do not know who you think I am, or what you are trying to accuse me of, but it appears that you have been incorrectly informed, and sounds like you are thinking of outing me in some fashion.  Before you embarrass yourself, note this.  Were I commercially connected in any way whatsoever, beyond general knowledge of the subject area, I would not be editing it as freely as I am, because that would be a violation of wikipolicy, which is probably the most important aspect of the whole project, in my view, though you thumb your nose at it with impunity.  That's an ethical issue, and if you think you've got one with me, bring it.  My conscience is clear.  You are the editor with the documented problems in that arena.  I think you would be wise to follow all of SilkTorks advice.  Any further efforts to ascertain my real life identity are unwarranted, unwelcome, and likely to disappoint you, not me.  No responses are necessary, as I am not at all interested in carrying on any further conversation with you on your talkpage concerning the topics discussed above.  Good luck with your editing and again, please pick a different (and non-conflicted) topic area where you can thrive gracefully. Duff (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, wasn't going to. I just thought it ironic in view of the info I was given. Blackash   have a chat 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROLE Accounts

 * Please insert comments at the bottom of discussions which are underway, so that conversations can be properly understood in the order in which comments have occurred, and so that other editors may easily locate and properly respond to your comments. Countless times, have you been reminded of this.  (Okay, maybe they could be counted...must we?) Please comply.  I moved your comment to the bottom of the thread, at the appropriate place in time, and commented briefly there.  ::::::The fullness of my response, and its nature, belongs on your talk page, not on the article talk page, so here it is:
 * Regarding your point, please re-read WP:ROLE, and not just the disjointed phrase you like.
 * "Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts" — accounts shared by multiple people—are as a rule forbidden and blocked. If you edit for an organization please see username policy guidance."
 * "User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. The sole exceptions are non-editing accounts providing email access to major internal mailing lists and accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list  below), and approved bots with multiple managers."
 * You are not an exception to that prohibition. Not using it for sockpuppetry is not a conditional WP:ROLE use permit. Your user account represents a "creative partnership", a fact which you have repeatedly attested to, both specifically and by your continued use of the word, "WE," in making many, many of your comments, on a number of articles and talk pages with which you have been repeatedly and clearly determined to have a very distinct, real-life conflict of interest.  That is not editing as an individual.  That is "editing for an organization," which, read carefully at Username policy guidance.  You may benefit also, from a close read of this essay, Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.  Please try to understand this and know that I mean nothing personal against you or your partner.  You seem like interesting people.  I sincerely love what you are doing with live wood and am, frankly, a little green over the bee-yoo-tee of your gardens.  However, that said, Wikipedia has these policies for very good reasons, ones that I highly respect and so should you, too, please.   d u f f   19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Duff, counting this comment, this will be the 4th time, please show the diff where you think I inserted my comment out of order. I have already answered this above and if your issue is that sometimes I type we instead of I, I endeavor not to do so in future. Blackash   have a chat 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Duff the fact the I inserted my comments in the middle yours has not normally been an issue for you, as other editors have done so to your comments, without you saying boo and you have done it to mine here. Duff you have chosen to make an issue out of it. Why? Blackash   have a chat 10:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Duff here are some references for the accusations of lying
Here a few examples:-

Duff quote *"No responses are necessary, as I am not at all interested in carrying on any further conversation with you on your talk page concerning the topics discussed above."
 * Becky reply: Strange Duff, you started a section just above all about an earlier conversation. That would seem to be lying to me.

Duff quote *"Nobody wants to talk about anybody's behavior outside wikipedia, so please keep all of your personal and professionally related comments about your professional rivals, including half-stated innuendos, to yourself." Becky comment: When I said that you only wanted this statement to apply to me you asked for diffs well let start with your comments on my talk page Duff. Duff quote *"including your repeated efforts both on and off-wiki " diff
 * Duff'scomments about off wikipedia behavior

Becky comment: This one a doozy within the same comment you say don't talk about other people's behavior outside wikipedia you do so about me.
 * Duff quote *"You have conducted, have admitted conducting, and continue to conduct an on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the use of the word arborsculpture in any context and instead direct the world to your own website, where your supposedly superior methods to those you purport to be those of another artist, and your still-pending book on the topic, can be pushed." diff

Becky comment: In this comment you ask which editors and for diff and Duff you again talk about my posts of wikipedia
 * Duff quote *"You have stalked the word arborsculpture on and off wikipedia"
 * Duff quote *"I have seen your 'standard comment' and many of your not-so-standard comments, involving the word 'inferior', if that rings a bell, in a godawful lot of different places. While you might see this as perfectly innocent and justified: disparaging a professional rival, redirecting interest to your website, and pinning it on a faulty decision at Wikipedia, is just really apalling"
 * Duff quote *"It is probably your most serious violation, and you seem to think it is perfectly acceptable. As for other editors, on this type of off-wiki behavior, I've never seen anything like it before." diff

Becky reply: Well Duff you sure talking about your opinion about my behavior off wikipedia and that just on my talk page. Please try to practice what you preach, within your own comments would be a start. Blackash  have a chat 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to see the distinction between talking trash (like lobbing inuendos) as you did, and presenting clear evidence of misuse. Each of my comments that you have quoted above do pertain to your actions off-wiki, but those actions were your specific misuses of Wikipedia and the arborsculpture page.  These are indeed actions which you have committed off-wiki, online, where all can reference them...and they have been referenced, repeatedly, by multiple editors.  Now do you see the difference?  Also, please consult your dictionary for the definition of a lie and look carefully into your beautiful mirror as you do.   d u f f   05:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm when it comes to lying, giving quotes with links is hardly talking trash.
 * definition of lie
 * to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
 * to express what is false; convey a false impression.
 * Lets see your statement "Nobody wants to talk about anybody's behavior outside wikipedia" is clearly a lie as you clearly do want to talk about my behavior off-wikipedia quote "do pertain to your actions off-wiki". whatever your justifications doesn't change that you are still talking about my behavior off-wikipedia which means that you lied when you stated nobody wants to talk about off-wiki behavior.


 * Now lets look at the Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199 Duff you state quote "I am neither the accuser nor the accused" Yet you listed the investigation and Duff you did make accusations at Tree shaping quote here "a few weak socks" here "I'm not entirely convinced either that Blackash and Sydney Bluegum aren't socks (or meats, or roles) " and here "Are you Blackash's cohort" Duff you have make accusations or questioned other editors integrity, you are also the only editor to accuse me of having a WP:ROLE account. In a separate comment you state A question I have is whether Sydney Bluegum is the registered username of the life partner of Blackash So you are the accuser, thou you state you are not. Blackash   have a chat 08:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)