User talk:Blackash/Archive 2

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)
 * 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, 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? --Elonka 22:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to 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)
 * Result Blackash and ?oygul are ❌, and I cannot find anything relating to ?oygul. -–MuZemike 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive links
I'll have to sort out the archive links later.  

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

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, --Elonka 00:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --Elonka 02:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. ArbCom sanctions aside, these messages where you attacked Martin Hogbin were not acceptable. 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, --Elonka 03:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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, 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. 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)


 * 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)

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)

Growingvillage.com
Blackash, could you please review your edit here? 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, --Elonka 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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 Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. If you disagree with the outcome please start a new discussion first. Thanks, Amalthea  11:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I just keep adding info boxes. Blackash   have a chat  04:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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. --Elonka 04:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --Elonka 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok got it Blackash   have a chat  04:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Illustration
Hi Backash, That was a great image that you added to the hydraulic fracturing pages. I don't suppose you have a version with English captions? Although I can guess at the meanings of the German captions, it would be better to have English captions on English Wikipedia. It is, again, a great diagram. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this on wiki commons and it was only after I put it up on a couple of articles, I saw it was not English. Sorry I don't have the original image without text. I do agree it would be great with English text, if we can get it translated maybe I can do something. Blackash   have a chat  16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be good. Google translate is pretty good, but editing the image won't be easy... Smm201`0 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True I do like the photo as the top of the illustration and I'm thinking I would have to recreate the whole illustration with a different image. I've done illustration before but it will be a couple of weeks before I'll get it done.  Blackash   have a chat  16:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * VERY NICE! Smm201`0 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Blackash   have a chat  17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pleaching
Blackash you have refs for pleaching would you please help me improve the article. ?oygul (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll talk to you on the pleaching talk. Blackash   have a chat  08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)