User:Cullen328/sandbox/talk

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.