User talk:Cullen328/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your comment on the Silicon Valley article.

talk

) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for the recognition, Scalhotrod. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Gary Grimshaw

Hello Cullen, I've come across your note at Drmies' talk page. First of all, my condolences for the loss of your friend. But I'm wondering if you happen to have any photographs of him you might want to share. Currently there's a non-free image at File:Gary Grimshaw 1973.jpg but if you could scan and upload an old photo under a free license we could replace the fair-use file. De728631 (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, De728631. Gary Grimshaw was someone I knew and respected, but not a really a close friend. I uploaded that file, and that photo was taken by Leni Sinclair, who was a friend of his for 48 years. I consider that photo iconic and representative of him when he was "at the top of his game." Although she holds the copyright, she is a big supporter of free media and has made the photo available for many uses over the years, including flyers for an event held just a few days ago to commemorate Gary's life and work. Leni and Gary collaborated on a rock photo and art book a couple of years ago, and I am certain that she is OK with having a low resolution copy on Wikipedia under fair use. If I had a free photo or knew where I could get one, I would upload it to Commons in a heartbeat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, both. It reminds me of

Hermann Müller. (I didn't count the times I wrote an article on the occasion of a death.) The Lord bless you and keep you, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 08:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, when I read about Hermann Müller's work to restore the historic timber framed buildings in his home town, I was reminded of the Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery, built in a similar style. Admittedly, that building is only 98 years old, but by California standards, that is ancient. I hope that you like the photo, Gerda, since I took it, and I wrote the article as well. I'm not bragging, but just saying that the encyclopedia is a tiny bit better with it than without it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Same for this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info, Cullen. I agree with you that this image is sort of iconic for the 70ies rock attitude, so let's try to keep it. De728631 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I create a profile page?

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia know most stuff now but how do I create a title page for my account? Things like articles of interest, languages spoken, any kind of thing that might be usueful who's scrolling through my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

WP:USERPAGE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

16:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Landau

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

request for comment on Talk:Martin Landau. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk

) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail Flat Out let's discuss it 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All is well, I hope. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

yes all good and thanks.Flat Out let's discuss it 06:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Emma Kenny

Hi Jim ,

Hope you are well. I really need your help if possible. Im quite new to wikipedia and i set a page up last year for Emma kenny who is a counsellor and psychologist. More recently some other (obviously jealous) members of wikipedia have gone onto the page and edited it with lies and slander. Do you have any pointers on how i can change this back as it is very detrimental to her livelihood and can cause extreme damage to her reputation. It is all lies and needs to be removed. Can you help ?

warmest regards

Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please furnish strong evidence of the "lies and slander" you claim, as I am not seeing it yet, Petesmith2013. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly let me apologise for my ranting. bit of a newbie here and really didnt men to offend. please accept my apologies. What i meant to get across was that Emma Kenny has a ll quals to let her practice. im struggling to find online evidence for her Masters (manchester uni 2010 in counselling ) and her degree at university of lancashire. She is registered on the BACP register which entitles her to practice as a psychologist in th euK legally. the source form the BMJ is basically a blog written by an individual with a persoan opinion. Is there any way i can look at geting the true facts up on her page? once again. the last thing i wanted to do was to upset any of you guys as i know you work solidly on this.

^[1]

A few suggestions,

assuming good faith of other editors here on Wikipedia. Be very slow to accuse others of "lies and slander" and be prepared to offer compelling evidence along with such charges, not later. If you say that someone is entitled to practice as a psychologist, then provide the evidence of that or be prepared to have such uncited claims removed immediately. That's how things work on Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say. Nothing more than that. Another friendly suggestion: You will be more successful here, in my opinion, if you proofread your contributions for spelling, grammar and capitalization. This is not mandatory, but following my recommendation is likely to result in your contributions being taken more seriously. Take care.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

07:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, many thanks for replying. I agree and must apologise. Just been in a hurry to try and sort this out. I didnt understand how it works and must apologise for my ranting. I have now tried to show evidence of her being able to practice as a psychologist but not sure why it wont be taken seriously. Im trying to find out how to show her masters degree etc on line but its hard. I have however shown sources that say she can practice as her title and her register number. Huge thanks for not ignoring me due to my incoherent ranting late last night. just panicked . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted cheerfully, Petesmith2013. Now discuss the matter in calm, sober detail on the article's talk page. I am sorry that it's "hard" to find reliable sources for the information you want to add to the article, but until it is sourced properly, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man. feel like punching myself ;-) I have left some discussion on the talk page with reliable sources regarding facts etc. i will get onto her university stuff straight away . I have sourced articles that show that the term psychologist is not a protected title so hopefully this swill be suffice for now. huge thanks again pal. hopefully i can get this sorted out with flat out. i have apologised also to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to continue the Teahouse thread here

Hi, I read your feedback at the Teahouse. Thanks for giving it to me. I've implemented most of the changes although I didn't think it was wise to remove the final paragraph as the lead is supposed to summarize all the sections of an article. --

talk

) 23:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk Back!

How did you judge that using THE NUMBER OF EDITS? usually i editing something continuously if it needs much attention. Which i don't save often. But when i work form time to time i save it. Just like my use page. If you think that developing a user page is not fair then just complain it. I've already answered one question and awarded badges to new guests. A few hours of joining. Hope this answers. Thank you, faithfully, --User:Andrew Eugene 04:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Eugene (talk • contribs)

Hello Andrew Eugene. It is good that you want to contribute to the English Wikipedia. But your brief edit history and the mangled syntax in your comment above shows that you do not yet have either the experience or the English language fluency to be a Teahouse host at this time. Please work on developing your English skills and your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You just aren't ready yet, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328 Took down the refused badge sir!!!! I've created my account a long time ago but i started surfing wiki for editing articles yesterday. I expected wiki to be a place full of educated people. Yes it is. But akin to reading material many of the older users have lack of feelings. It is by mistakes we learn. There is a way to show what we deserve. Regarding my English: I used informal language with you and that is NOT my writing. So a paragraph can't help you decide who I'am. I won Southern province for instant English speeches from 20 schools. Was praised by the Sri Lankan parliament for a speech contributing the continuation of English Medium in schools. And I'm fluent in English rather than my own mother-tongue. I study English Literature as an Advanced Level subject. And passed my O/L English with a extremely good pass and English Literature with a very good pass. And this is the first time a person said this to me while my teachers grade me as an A class student. The best part is that my father is an English Teacher . So please maintain decorum in Wikipedia without making it a disgusting experience for the new users. Remember the day you joined wiki? You learned by reading and experience isn't it? Usually we humans don't generate wiki-genes to be passed on to their children. I love you for showing me what i lack.EXPERIENCE in "editing" not in "English". I hope you have a touch of sense regarding these matters. Please don't consider this an offence. Just understand things by examining. Thank you

I did not refuse the badge but just noted that I already had received it. Perhaps you can work on articles about Sri Lanka until you have gained a bit more experience here. You write far better English than I write any other language so I commend you for that. But receiving excellent marks for English in Sri Lanka is not equivalent to full fluency in the sort of English prose expected in an encyclopedia used by English speakers worldwide. Please do not take my comments as insults, Andrew Eugene, but rather as constructive criticism. You can definitely contribute constructively here. Just take things slowly, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I perfectly understand what you say. I will gradually ascend to a stranded level. Your advises are warmly welcome in the future too. Thank you again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Eugene (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK review question

Thanks so much for reviewing my DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/The Oracle of Delphi (film). I'm simply writing to ask whether you had some reason for not including a voting icon (e.g , , , etc.) with your review. I'm new to the DYK process, but I had been given to understand that including an icon was required for the process. In any case, thanks again.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lemuellio. I don't participate at DYK very often because I find the instructions and procedures to be very complex and counterintuitive. I don't recall the need to add a graphic symbol to the review last time I reviewed a nomination. But I have added the

to the nomination, and hope that moves your nomination along. I apologize for my error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gary Grimshaw

nominate

) 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at Ernst Roth? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Against the spirit of what was agreed at WP:ANI

I was recently in conflict with another editor about Bookspam. The compromise that I thought had been accepted was that the book reference properly belonged in one article

Remote sensing (archaeology), but do not wish to be embroiled in another argument or thread on ANI. Please advise. --Greenmaven (talk

) 04:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At ANI, I supported the usage of the source as additional reading in

Remote sensing (archaeology) but Bearean Hunter clearly feels that the editor adding it is spamming the encyclopedia. It seems to me upon quick review that the source is solid but I am no archaeologist and understand the point that no attempt is being made to improve the article(s) based on the source but rather to just add the source, possibly with a promotional intent. I perceived no clear consensus at ANI though I agreed generally with your position there. Perhaps Drmies, who closed that discussion, and who usually has wise things to say about such issues, can offer some advice to you (and me) on this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, yes, sure, I closed that--but that was easy. First of all, there is a difference between bookspamming and adding a book. The first is part of a pattern of behavior, the second is, well, different. The first is blockable, the second is reversible. (Besides other things, of course.) Greenmaven, if you think you have an argument for including it there, stick it back and make your case on the talk page. In general, though, I'm not a big fan of "Further reading", especially since for this topic there are a LOT of books one could add. In other words, since the selection criterion for book X over a bunch of others is not immediately evident ("Further reading" offers no kind of parameter besides "further"), they are basically indiscriminate lists.

Now, suppose editor Y is familiar with book X, to the point where they feel it ought to be included for one reason or another. Why wouldn't editor Y not simply cull a couple of facts from that book and use it as a reference for topic Z? That way it's listed, and in a more useful (since more precise) way. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In this case editor Y was a brand new editor, and I am partly coming from a new-editor-friendly perspective formed by

Remote sensing (archaeology). It is an up to date reference work, published by the academic publisher Springer (Verlag). I agree that the editor could "cull some facts" etc. On "Further reading", I see it as very useful; the reader can pursue the topic; this seems a valuable attribute for an encyclopaedia. --Greenmaven (talk

) 05:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A point in the book's favor, Jack Greenmaven, is that it turns up as #3 on the Google books search that Drmies linked to. It seems a solid source. And I am all in favor of welcoming new editors who are here to improve the encylopedia. So, if this was some kind of fringe treatment of the subject, and the editor was trying to insert it into every single article about archaeology, then the block hammer would be appropriate. On the other hand, the editor is not discussing the matter, and is not improving the content of the most relevant article. So, it is negative six of one and negative half a dozen of another. What Is to Be Done? I don't think that we can refer to Lenin for the proper answer. I will try sleeping on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for this discussion. I will also sleep on it. I have checked a library to which I have access, but they do not yet have the book, so I am not in a position to edit the article myself. (I am not an archeologist). --Greenmaven (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel Grove

Sir,

I find my abilities with Wikipedia to not be up to the task of entering a somewhat significant amount of material to the Spiegel Grove article. The material I found is part of a month long project involving digitally archiving a book of antiquity. The addition to the Spiegel Grove article would update how and when it came into the hands of the present day Ohio Historical Society, long before it became a National Landmark. I have copied out those pages, as well as the title page of the book, into a PDF. It can be downloaded here and is about 6 megabytes with the applicable passages highlighted.

Sorry to bother, but the coding they use around here is waaayy beyond my understanding. I just cannot fathom it, and I understand HTML good enough to manage half a dozen Joomla sites. I don'e even care who gets the credit, just that it gets done. I would use the additional content verbatim in a two-column style.

Cordially, A. Wayne Webb Junior Wiki member --A. Wayne Webb (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello A. Wayne Webb. You managed to Wikilink to the article and link to the PDF just fine. But we don't add lengthy text verbatim from other sources, even if in the public domain. We also don't add article text in two columns, although tables and reference lists are sometimes formatted that way. Perhaps you can be a bit more specific about what you hope to accomplish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Sir. I can understand about "wordy" additions. My hope is that someone can take what I supplied and add some particulars to the Spiegel Grove Wiki article. And BTW, I added a couple of more pages to the PDF. Come to find out Andrew Carnegie had a hand in it. --A. Wayne Webb (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation,

WP:CHEATSHEET, a brief guide to Wikimarkup, and try to expand the article yourself. You know the material far better than I do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Lindhout

Please read before making snap judgments: www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/06/escape-from-hell/. InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I already read plenty,

WP:BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What more needs to be said right now? Several editors have already made it crystal clear to you that you will not be allowed to turn this article into a "blame the victim" hit piece. It simply isn't going to happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're the only one who's said anything about "blaming the victim". Which victim am I blaming? Lindhout or Brennan? Do you even have the faintest idea of what you are talking about? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, they are both victims, but you seemed determined to try to tear down Lindhout. I read your bullet list at

WP:SPA of the sort I've seen hundreds of times before. You seem to be here to grind an axe instead of building an encyclopedia. If I am wrong, prove me wrong by conducting yourself like an encyclopedist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"tear down Lindhout"? That would only be correct if you took the binary view that by BRIEFLY mentioning ONE instance where Brennan's account contradicts Lindhouts, would amount to "tearing down".

I've provided a full range of reliable sources.

"Single Purpose Account"? It's my first article, surely everyone's first article is "single purpose"?

"by conducting yourself like an encyclopedist". I've researched, provided sources, written copy, engaged in the talk page, followed the advice of the administrator Mark Arsten. What have you done?

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, I have very mixed feelings about what they did. On the one hand, I applaud anyone who takes a risk in order to follow an unconventional but potentially rewarding path. On the other, I think they were extremely foolish to do what they did, in the manner that they did, despite the warnings from professional journalists, their governments, and their families - evidenced by the fact that it only took them three days to be kidnapped. What I find particularly distasteful however, is not that Lindhout has managed to make a career out of her ordeal, but that she has managed to excise the experience of Brennan from her accounts - that's not courageous, and lacks serious journalistic integrity (I speak as a professional here, and many fellow professionals have published the exact same thing).

But as I said, I'm bowing out, Wikipedia is clearly no place for well-intentioned newcomers. I've been nothing but threatened, harassed, called a "vandal", "axe to grind", etc, etc. The famous "civility" you extol on your page here. I get paid to research and write, and this Wikipedia caper isn't worth the stress, frankly. If people don't care to look at the sources, then what else can I do? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have written about 60 new articles, expanded hundreds more, saved many articles from deletion, helped train dozens of new editors about how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, and worked to protect many biographies from attacks by people pushing a negative point of view. And more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. So if I write about 60 new articles, expand hundreds more, save many from deletion, help train dozens of editors to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, and work to protect many biographies from attacks by people pushing a negative point of view, and more, then I'll have your permission to try and improve the Amanda Lindhout article, without being accused of having "an axe to grind"? InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:UNDUE Flat Out let's discuss it

01:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting, I thought you said you were leaving Wikipedia? Since you are still hanging around, I will say you don't need to do all that stuff I've done over a 4-/2 year period. Just drop the game plan that you outlined at BLPN to try to make this woman look bad, start editing neutrally, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No comment on content, just ad hominems and accusations, as usual... keep it up, it's making you look really civil InTheInterestOfObjectiveReporting (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim, I have included a diff from your talk page at ANI. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benedetto Varchi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

request for comment on Talk:Benedetto Varchi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk

) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Wendy Davis (politician)

This edit accidentally mangled a closing tag, messing up subsequent posts and signatures. I've fixed that and added your name after the post you made. It would also help if you weighed in with any thoughts as, based on the edit histories of some editors, I suspect they're not as impartial as they should be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong. I will keep a close eye on the discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I was accused of both whitewashing for and personally attacking Davis within the space of fifteen minutes. I find that hilarious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider that a pretty good indication that you are working to maintain NPOV, NeilN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here. An IP is adding links to opinion pieces, Breitbart columnists, and news about Davis' staffers supposedly as "sources" to the talk page. It's obvious the IP has an agenda and we really shouldn't let the talk page become a list of links to pages solely containing negative info about the subject but their behavior isn't exactly disruptive. Any advice? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Some transparent tea for you!

	Hi!
	Thanks for manning the Teahouse and answering my question! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bananasoldier. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix mugshot

Extensive discussion about the Jimi Hendrix mugshot

The proper way to retain the image is to write a dedicated article about the arrest, and put it there, but to bend over backwards and Wikilawyer it into staying at the summary bio is undue, IMO. We don't bend over backwards like this to illustrate any other moment in his life, why should we at his bio? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion at the article. Don't make it personal. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet. In my view, GabeMc, doing research and analysis is not bending over backwards, and I don't see how I am Wikilawyering any more than you are. I will continue with my research as I am enjoying learning more about this chapter in Hendrix's life. I will take your suggestion about a separate article under advisement and make a decision about that after the current discussion, which you initiated, has concluded. I will make substantive comments on the talk page. Thanks to you as well, GabeMc. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there is no extended discussion/analysis regarding an image of Hendrix at Woodstock, or Monterey, or the Isle of Wight, any one of which would be much more historic than the drug bust. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, if I want to discuss article creation with Cullen it does not need to be at the Hendrix talk page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not ping me again, Gabe. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so caustic and aggressive? Also, why edit-stalk/tps me here in the first place then request that I don't ping you? Why are you so grumpy? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had this talk page on my watchlist for four months now, ever since wishing bon voyage on a Hawaii trip, so my comment here was not a case of me stalking you. I like Cullen328 as an editor and as a person—I think he's very level-headed. You on the other hand are hot-headed. Remember how I repeatedly asked you to cool your jets even when we were on the same side of the Beatles dispute? I think your hot-headedness gets in the way of neutral discussion, and it creates unnecessary friction, thus opposition. People dig their heels in harder when you push the point so aggressively—it does not convince them to change their minds.

I don't see your presence at this user talk page as an intent "to discuss article creation with Cullen" but as a case of bullying, as a wish to make it personal, to get in Cullen's face and accuse him of wikilawyering, and trying too hard to argue his point. I say look in the mirror, old chap, look in the mirror. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to learn to let grudges go, man. I'm not bullying Cullen; why would he thank me if he felt bullied by me? The Hendrix talk page is already so bogged down that more comments there really aren't helping the discussion, and to be honest, that's a pretty good tactic for achieving no consensus; i.e. walls of text confound the point. I really don't care what you think of me personally, but do you intend to follow me around for several years reminding me that you do not like me and why? You need to get over what happened at the Beatles meditation (over a year ago); those editors bullied me for several years and I did what needed to be done so that others wouldn't also get bullied in perpetuity. I don't care if you disagree with me; the proof is in the pudding. One year ago, three or four editors were controlling the entire Beatles project, now its back to a diverse collaboration where everyone is free to edit and make suggestions. I'm quite proud of settling that 8-year dispute that showed no signs of ending, and I stand by my actions, even the hot-headed ones. Learn forgiveness, Bink; I'm not a bad person, and I don't need you to police my every move. If Cullen feels bullied by me then I hop he tells me that so I can address the concern, but as of now I have no reason to believe that. Cullen, do you feel bullied by me in this debate?GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you, Gabe. I'm glad you broke up the gridlock at the Beatles. I was just pointing out that your aggressive style provokes opposition unnecessarily, and that I see this in action here. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you have this wrong, because to be 100% honest, I wasn't even planning on taking a position in this debate until I felt that Cullen bogged-down the FFD discussion by badgering every delete vote with inaccuracies, while casting doubt on everyone's knowledge of the subject (check the discussion if you don't believe me). It was Cullen's aggressive approach at the FFD that inspired me to speak-up. I'm not the only Wikipedian who argues their point with passion, so please stop misrepresenting me as a hot-head who gets everything wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, I think you are a hot-head but I don't think you get "everything wrong". You are right more often than not. Regarding who "bogged down" the deletion discussion, to me it looks like you are a contender, with more than 50 posts. Cullen328 brought less than 20 posts, and his tone was reasonable, not personal or "badgering". Perhaps you were getting Cullen mixed up with Doc9871, who posted 44 times and used more insistent and personalized language. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but Cullen badgered me and Stefan, saying that we lacked proper knowledge of the situation. Did you notice that he insisted several times that the actual image has been the subject of critical commentary? Well, as far as I can tell there isn't even one single secondary source that even mentions the mugshot. Yeah, I know its in that book, but I predict that when my copy arrives later this week I'll see that the author discusses the arrest, but not the actual image, which is required to meet the threshold for inclusion of a copyrighted image; we need to discuss the image, not just use it for decoration. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, GabeMc and Binksternet, you are both welcome here at my talk page to talk to me, or even for brief comments to each other. But please take lengthy interactions between the two of you elsewhere. Thank you.

Binksternet and I did chat here about my visit to Hawaii a few months back, so he has every right to watch my talk page, and though we don't interact often, I consider him a friend. I would like to think of you as a friend, too, GabeMc, and would like to ask your opinion on some other Hendrix things once this has died down. I mean that.

GabeMc, I don't feel bullied, but that's because I am a pretty self confident guy. Your style of interaction directed toward someone with another personality type might well be perceived as bullying, in my humble opinion. What you call badgering, I call bringing forward new sources and correcting inadvertent errors. I thanked you above because it is my common practice to thank every editor who I believe is making a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that you are firmly in that camp. But my thanks does not mean I endorse every aspect of your behavior.

When I pointed out that the charges against Hendrix weren't dropped as you had said, but rather that he had been acquitted in a three day jury trial, that is not saying that you "lacked proper knowledge of the situation" but merely that you were incorrect on that one very specific point. I was in the midst of researching the trial, so it is quite likely that the facts were fresher in my mind. We all make mistakes and I readily acknowledge mine. No one is perfect. I have acknowledged that you are a Hendrix expert while I am only a mere fan, and have praised your contributions to the article, which are immense.

Please provide a quote where I "insisted" even once that the image had been the subject of critical commentary, other than one blog-style website discovered recently. I really don't think I ever said that. Although critical commentary is preferable, it is not absolutely necessary, when an image of an historically significant event is involved. I have neither discovered, nor have I claimed to have discovered, critical commentary on the image itself. But I have found significant discussion of the attire that the image shows. I have also never asserted (though you've repeatedly claimed I have), that he was searched because of his attire. I did report, accurately, that the Rolling Stone speculated about that in their initial report. I didn't say that, but rather that Ben Fong-Torres and another reporter said that back in 1969. What I have said, and what I believe to be true is that pointing out his flamboyant "mod" attire at the time of arrest was part of the defense strategy. That is not my opinion, that is what reliable sources including a contemporaneous newspaper report said. It is now an indisputable fact that at least three books published decades later include the mugshot. And many websites do as well. I believe that makes the image "iconic" albeit not a major iconic image. And in an encyclopedia approaching 4.5 million articles, I conclude that inclusion of this image is justified.

I believe that I have brought legitimate new sources to this debate, and a fresh view of the significance of the arrest and trial. In response, you have tripled the coverage of these events in the article and improved the sourcing, GabeMc. I think my observations helped motivate that. My bottom line is that I want to help improve the encyclopedia. I think that the Hendrix biography is better when it better explains the personal issues, "demons" if you will, that contributed in any way to his far too early death. I have refrained from editing the article much myself, because I do not want to risk getting you more upset, GabeMc.

Is it really a neutral assessment to say that you make your points with "passion" but when I advocate my opinion, I am being "aggressive"? Why a positive connotation for you, and a negative one for me?

As for your oft-expressed desire for a great color photo of Hendrix at Monterey, or Woodstock, or the Isle of Wight, that is entirely understandable but in my view, unrelated to the question of this mugshot image. There must be hundreds of such images of varying quality and commercial value, and it is possible that some copyright holder might freely license one on Commons some day. There is only one known mugshot.

I know nothing about any dispute about the Beatles, unless it was about "The" versus "the", which is an issue I view with with the same heightened level of bemusement as controversy about the spelling of the cultured milk product starting with the letter "Y". So why rehash The Beatles dispute on my talk page, gentlemen?

I intend to collapse this discussion tomorrow, if it is OK with the two of you.

In conclusion, let me say again as I have said before that I will always try make my arguments based on policies, guidelines and reliable sources, and will accept consensus however it goes. I regret hurting your feelings, GabeMc. Let's not make things personal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

How do you create "Userboxes"? How Can you create "infoboxes"? Can you do polls on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokufan8989 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for being slow to respond,

consensus for more information. I hope these links help you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

03:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with first time articel

Hi Jim, I am trying to create an article below and have included references from the SFgate newspaper and many others but cannot get it approved. Do you have any advice for me on what I am doing wrong? Appreciate your help

Hello, Kmarsh22. The draft you've copied here has only three references, none of which discuss this person. What are these references? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the draft from my page as the references were messed up, and read the draft following the link on your talk page. Please read all the links provided by the reviewer, plus
WP:AUTHOR. Your current sources do not show notability. Amazon listings, publisher's blurbs and an interview of an author promoting a book do not show notability, as they are all part of book marketing and are therefore not independent. Obituaries in local papers do not establish notability and the Marin IJ obit has all the hallmarks of a piece written by a colleague or family member. The SF Gate piece is better, but is basically an extended event listing of a local author speaking at a local bookstore. You need much stronger sources, which should be formatted properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it
20:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

relax and recharge
Thank you, Jim, for truly thinking that Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread, for quality articles (that you don't own) on the Sierra and its people, such as Cedric Wright, for rescuing articles, for welcoming and helping new users, for mentoring and encouraging those who leave to "reconsider", "take a break for a while whenever you need to", "relax and recharge", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, Gerda Arendt, I am fortunate enough to have received quite a few positive comments about my work here on Wikipedia, and I appreciate every one of them. But I don't think that I can recall another that came close to yours in genuinely recognizing what I try to accomplish here. And on top of it, you read my Cedric Wright article. Thank you so much. I wish we had a freely licensed photo of him, as he was a man of striking appearance. It is bedtime for me now. Tomorrow, I will read a few of your articles. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed Cedric Wright for DYK, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not remember that you reviewed that DYK, Gerda Arendt, so let me thank you now if I didn't thank you then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda for you ;) - I don't remember all my reviews but for some reason that one. Those of 2013 are in the my

BWV 172, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

^ http://www.bacpregister.org.uk/check_register/result_details.php?personid=1227178

[1] ttp://www.bacpregister.org.uk/check_register/result_details.php?personid=1227178

[1]