User talk:Cullen328/Archive 11

Questions and answers

 * RE: "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."


 * Quote: "It seems that this mugshot is discussed in two books about mugshots, Under Arrest: A History of the Twentieth Century in Mugshots and Mug Shots: An Archive of the Famous, Infamous, and Most Wanted. I am not sure how significant the coverage is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)"(emphasis added) TO the best of your knowledge, is this statement accurate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat, "I am not sure how significant the coverage is."  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You said that you knew that the mugshot was discussed in two books, but I havn't seen any proof of that whatsoever. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you see the words "It seems" and the sentence in bold above? Those books came up in my Google Books search as hits on the phrase "Jimi Hendrix mugshot". There are no views nor snippets available online. That's why I qualified the comment two ways, at the beginning and the end.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's why I said that many of your comments at the FFD were misleading. If seems is a guess, then why phrase it as though two books discussed the image when you do not have any reason to believe that they did discuss the actual image? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you misunderstand a heavily qualified statement, then I don't know how to help you. I did not search for celebrity mugshot books, I searched using Jimi Hendrix specifically.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't confuse me, because I know that you don't have any evidence to back-up the statement, but when you put that out in the FFD discussion you may have mislead others in to thinking that the actual image was discussed in two books when you can't prove that at all. Can you? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The qualifications to my statement are readily apparent to all intelligent readers.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "In fact, I have provided the contextual significance: three reliable sources that show quite clearly that his appearance and attire in the Toronto airport the night he was arrested was widely discussed back then". What three sources? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am away from home right now and editing on a mobile phone, so I am not 100% certain which 3 I was referring to. Certainly, the December, 1969 Globe and Mail story, then possibly one of the Rolling Stone pieces and the biography that discusses the arrest and trial at some length.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, but can you even name one source that describes "his appearance and attire in the Toronto airport" on may 3, 1969? Because I havn't seen any proof of that either. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say Globe and Mail, December, 1969 where they report on the cross examination of the customs agent regarding his demeanor and attire at the airport?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then where are you getting the information? Why can't you link to the Globe and Mail article if it proves your point? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An image of the Globe and Mail article is reproduced in The Torontoist source, and the two publications have a partnership agreement.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "The fact is that his specific attire when he was arrested was discussed by reliable sources at that time". Which reliable sources? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail, December, 1969. Discussion in Rolling Stone  about his attire, which I now see as weaker than the first time I read it.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  20:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone does not say one iota about Hendrix's attire on the day of the arrest. Nothing. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That article speculates that his attire that day may have been a factor, and sure enough, the defense included his attire as an element of their successful case six months later. It is clear that the Hendrix camp was a major source for that article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Sorry to repeat myself, but the photo shows his "psychedelic" attire when he was arrested: wide collar, bare chest, bold jewelry, "loud" vest and "frizzy" hair. The words in quotes are from contemporaneous reports discussing his attire when he was arrested". Those words are general descriptors from Rolling Stone. They are not used as descriptions of his attire on the day of the arrest. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It speculates (incorrectly, I now believe), that his appearance including attire may have been a factor in him being searched at the airport.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Although general descriptors, they were advanced in discussion of the arrest and the role of the attire when he was arrested. The general descriptors actually apply to the attire in the photo.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak. The only way they apply is via your WP:OR, because the actual source is not in any way shape or form asserting that those words apply specifically to the clothes Hendrix was wearing on May 3, 1969. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OR policy applies to article space not image deletion discussions, and I have repeatedly acknowledged the speculative nature of the initial Rolling Stone article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but what good is the point if it is no help in keeping the image in article space? Anyway, you know full well that those descriptors were about Hendrix in general, and they were used as part of a unreliable speculation (that was most likely a favor to Hendrix), and in no way is RS claiming that those words describe his specific attire on May 3, 1969. They are totally irrelevant to the discussion and your repeated use of it as though it supports your position is misleading at best. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Let me be clear: I have not argued in favor of nor do I support inclusion of the mugshot to illustrate his common attire during his years of stardom, but rather to illustrate his specific attire when he was arrested." Again, which reliable sources discussed his attire that day? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Globe and Mail, December, 1969.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where specifically? Is this according to the Torontoist? Because you havn't provided the link to these articles that support your theory; you assert this as fact without providing evidence, which is misleading. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the two articles, Globe and Mail, December 1969 and Torontoist, 2012, I urge you to read both carefully from beginning to end.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "For example, another editor claimed that there was "no critical discussion of what he looked like when he was arrested" and I was able to find discussion of precisely that subject in high quality sources within a few minutes." Where is the critical discussion of what he looked like at the time of the arrest? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is, if I recall correctly, right around the time that I found the Torontoist piece containing a copy of the Globe and Mail, December, 1969 article, plus the two Rolling Stone articles. I may have mentioned another source around that time as well, but I am not sure and do not now have access to a computer.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link, because I still don't know what you mean. None of the sources I've seen discuss his attire at the airport on May 3, 1969. Can you please specifically explain to me where in this article: Historicist: Stone Free is the discussion of his attire at the airport? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please completely read and understand both articles. Thank you very much.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "The fact that the initial impressions by an impeccably reliable source like Ben Fong-Torres and his co-writer immediately after the arrest were reformulated six months later by his defense attorneys is only a detail, interesting as it is." Yet again, where are the reliable sources that discuss his appearance on the day of the arrest? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail, December, 1969. The initial Rolling Stone article outlined the successful core defense argument six months later, that he didn't know that the drugs were in his luggage. Attention seeking behavior and attire in the airport, lack of drug paraphernalia, lack of needle tracks on his arms, all that bolstered the defense contention. The role of the attire appears to have been reframed but remained a part of the defense strategy. Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He got off based on Chas Chandler and Sharon Lawrence's testimony about fans giving them gifts. His attire was a secondary part of the defense, not at all a primary one, which is evidenced by how little Hendrix was asked about his clothes during the trial. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The role of the attire in the defense strategy had to do with how customs agents perceived his attire, not what Hendrix himself thought about it. But they did discuss it with him during his testimony, as the transcript shows.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "So feel free to discount my initial comments which were made without studying the issue in more detail." Why, in your second keep !vote did you abandon the appearance argument in favour of "this is historic"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My first two or three comments were snap reactions that I liked the image, thought that 60s era mugshots were iconic, had written an article about a book about Freedom Rider mugshots, that I had been arrested myself at about the same time, and so on. As I studied the facts and the applicable policies and guidelines, I think that I made more germane points.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  21:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion is no more relevant than mine, and I don't see anything historic or iconic in this image, at all. As I said at the FFD discussion, this was the 4th time he was arrested and its not even the only time he was arrested in Toronto for drugs! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was arrested other times. But this was the arrest that led to a three day jury trial seven months later.. This is the case that placed him at great risk of prison time. This is the case that caused him great worry at the height of his career. This is the case that you devoted nine sentences to in the FA biography. How much did you write about the other arrests, like his other trivial Toronto incarceration, with no charges pressed? The domestic violence incident also deserves attention, but that is another discussion.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that: "Globe and Mail, December 1969", discussed his attire on May 3, 1969, but if you mean the copy printed in the Torontoist then how is: "'My clothes today are not my stage clothes.' Hendrix said. His stage wardrobe includes ..." a discussion of his attire on May 3, 1969? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! No, I never once mentioned that passage. Over and over, I have pointed out the description of the cross examination of Mervin Wilson, who described attention seeking behavior, "mod" attire and lack of drug paraphernalia.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, where does it say anything about "attention seeking behavior"? All I see is that Wilson agreed with Hendrix's lawyer that he was conspicuous. Are you equating conspicuous with "attention seeking behavior"? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, I am replying to your questions on a mobile device while away from the computer and my notes. Yes, the customs agent said he was "conspicuous". My 61 year old memory paraphrased that as "attention seeking behavior". Again, "conspicuous" is the correct word used.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I am back at a computer,, I see that the Torontoist used the phrase "drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing". I think that what I wrote above is a reasonable paraphrase of that.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I think we are getting somewhere now. My issue with this point is that it was raised by the defense, who essentially asked Wilson if he thought Hendrix looked conspicuous, to which he answered yes. So, the Hendrix defense team led Wilson to agree because it helped cast doubt on Jimi's mens rea, but who isn't going to agree that Hendrix stood-out in an airport? He was a very distinct looking person, especially in mod clothing. If I didn't know that the entire Hendrix entourage knew about the planned bust before Hendrix got dressed that day, I might be tempted to say that we have what we need for critical commentary. However, to suggest that his attire was actually a factor in his arrest would be dishonest, and it would mislead the reader. Do you agree with this point? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never supported any content that would either state or imply that he was searched because of his attire. Rather, that the defense argued the drugs were there without his knowledge, and that conspicuous mod dress, lack of paraphernalia, lack of needle tracks, were all inconsistent with a celebrity heroin user trying to smuggle drugs across the border. I try to express myself clearly, but somehow you seem not to understand my point.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I understand you, Cullen, and yes the defense did use that angle, but I'm still not convinced that it all adds up to critical commentary. Which source describes the defense strategy of "he was too conspicuous to have been transporting drugs"? If I can weave it all together and avoid a WP:SYNTH, I think we can justify inclusion of the image. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, can you provide any evidence that at least one source critically discusses the actual image or Hendrix's attire on May 3, 1969? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK,, on December 9, 1969, the Globe and Mail reported: "He agreed with Mr. O'Driscoll that Hendrix was conspicuous, wearing a headband and obviously mod clothing. Mr. Wilson said he found no spoons, pipes, cigarette papers or hypodermic needles in Hendrix's luggage."

Over 42 years later, on May 12, 2012, The Torontoist, a media partner of the Globe and Mail, reported: "In cross examination, however, O’Driscoll began casting doubt about the ownership of the narcotics. First, Wilson agreed with the defence lawyer that Hendrix had been a conspicuous sight at the airport, drawing attention to himself with his loud clothing. Then, Wilson admitted that the flight bag contained none of the paraphernalia usually associated with drug use—spoons, cigarette papers, or pipes. And Matheson confirmed that the police at the airport had found no needle marks on the musician’s arms." Wilson and Matheson were Canadian government employees and prosecution witnesses. The May 31, 1969 coverage in the Rolling Stone was written by two very prestigious rock journalists in the early days of their careers, Ritchie Yorke and Ben Fong-Torres. Yorke was based in Toronto at the time, and Fong-Torres in San Francisco. Both were known to be close to the Hendrix camp, and Yorke published a lengthy interview with Hendrix the following year. I believe that their story can be seen at least partially as an expression of the views of Hendrix and his team in the immediate aftermath of the arrest. This is shown by phrases such as "According to sources at the scene" and "There is talk that the defense – logically – will claim Hendrix to be the victim of a plant", and access to witnesses to the arrest like limo driver Louis Goldblatt whose comments led to a summary of the developing defense strategy, describing drug gifts to the stars, "This is most often done as a token of love, but sometimes for spite. And if somebody was out to 'get' Hendrix by laying a surprise stash on him – in his suitcase, more precisely, then phoning ahead to tip off the Mounties – there was plenty of time that this might have been accomplished, from the time he left off the suitcase at Detroit to when it arrived back in his hands at Toronto.". This May comment clearly anticipates and predicts the December defense strategy, and also anticipates and perhaps underpins the theorizing in many reliable sources over the years about where those drugs came from, including the possibility that someone may have planted them deliberately to weaken or damage Hendrix.

Now, we come to the speculative statement that has been so controversial in this discussion: "The populace of Toronto are a very conservative lot, and tend to look with suspicion upon anybody who looks and dresses a little different from themselves. Hendrix looks a lot different. Make an example of this freaky, frizzy-haired psychedelic spade (if you go by this reasoning) and maybe you can scare the freaks out of Yorkeville.". This is a comment that didn't really stand up six months later in its full implications, but it was a comment that presaged the broader point that his attire would be an issue at his trial. I readily admit that this comment does not report specifically on the details of his attire at the airport. But I believe that it originated from statements made to one or both of the reporters by people in the Hendrix camp that Hendrix had been flamboyant in behavior and dress at the airport, and that this would be an element of his defense. It was, and that defense strategy was successful. Hendrix was acquitted.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which secondary source describes the defense strategy that he couldn't have been smuggling drugs because he was dressed conspicuously? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Who used the phrase "couldn't have been smuggling drugs"? Certainly not me. The implication as I read the stories was not that he "couldn't" but rather that it was "implausible" and "illogical" given the facts about airport behavior, attire, lack or paraphernalia and lack of needle tracks. Those are my words in quotes, not the words of a source. "Reasonable doubt" is the Canadian standard as in most adversarial justice systems. The Torontoist and the Globe and Mail describe the line of questioning clearly, and a source need not say overtly "this was the defense strategy" when they analyze the events and select which defense lines of questioning to report on. There is no need to use the word "strategy" in the article. Just describe what the defense did. So those are the sources that should be cited in the article.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  01:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Re your RfC comment: "I have discovered a book that not only discusses the mug shot but features it on the cover." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see this as misleading because you do not actually know if the book discusses the actual image, do you? Repeating this over and over does not make it true. If you have not yet read the book, then why do you think its a good idea to introduce into the discussion a statement like: "I have discovered a book that ... discusses the mug shot"? This is what I mean when I say that you've convoluted the debate with inaccuracies. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Inaccuracies? Like a statement that the charges were dropped, when he was actually tried before a jury? Like a statement that only one book had the mugshot, when at least three do.? Or a statement that a link was to the trial transcript that was actually only to the transcript of Hendrix's testimony? I provided a link to a New York Times review of the book in question which says that the mugshots are each discussed briefly. Theoretically, they could have put Hendrix on the cover but never mentioned it in the text. We will see. I openly admitted that I hadn't yet read it. I mentioned it myself, not "over and over again", but twice. Once when it came up in a Google search, and the second time when I took a closer look and noticed that the Hendrix mugshot was on the cover. You are the one who brings it up over and over, as you have repeatedly brought up several of my comments over and over and over despite all my attempts to explain and clarify. Today, I ordered three books on Hendrix and three mugshot books, including all the books I have mentioned as possibilities. I will be happy to report what's in the books about the arrest, attire, trial and mugshot once I have had the chance to read the books. Then, we will both know the truth, at least regarding the content of these books. Will you please, please, please cease your incessant questioning until then, ?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  01:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said at the beginning of the discussion, that all OR and SYNTH that can't be reliably sourced in the article. FTR, this and this are how you justify the use of a non-free file. Of course I'll stop (you never asked before this); I thought we were debating. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)!
 * Well done! Outstanding additions to the article. I congratulate you, .   Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI just now
Maybe you meant to put it in the subsection above?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and I just cut and pasted it to the right section. Sorry, and thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  04:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's such a trainwreck at this point I'm amazed anyone can keep it straight.  Cheers! &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katy Perry
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katy Perry. 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Milk for you, and thanks
--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, !

User:Khabboos
It appears that Khabboos has no desire to continue the discussion or answer any questions previously asked, but would rather raise a question on what to do with my edits (they went against his non NPOV and were not supporting his view either) that have broken no rules. Could you please comment on my request to have this user blocked/banned from editing as it is the only solutuion? AcidSnow (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I share your concern about this editor,, and will watch the conversation at ANI. I am not prepared to support a block/ban at this time but will see how things develop.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this user does not appear to want to discuss anything as he continues to stall and ignore it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Directions please Jim
Hello Jim,

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and have a special interest in scientific research on dogs. I have built up a collection of recent advances that should be made available in Wikipedia as many of the current "facts" and citations are superceded. The Dog page is protected for obvious reasons. It has also become unwieldy and could do with restructuring and the moving of information to new article pages. Could you advise me if there is a team or group that is collaborating on editing entries for the domestic dog article, and how I might contact them, please?

Regards,

William of Aragon (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . I see that you've already left a note at Talk:Dog, which is a good place to start. If you don't get a response soon, you can leave talk page messages with editors who work on Dog frequently. Review the article's history to find those editors.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  23:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jim! PS: The street sign for your Cullen Ct is written in uncial font, often associated with the Irish. The legendary Irish hero Cú Chulainn - pronounced Koo-Cullen in English, lends the name. Regards, 122.49.179.221 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. "Cullen" is a name of great importance in my family, so I appreciate the information.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

articles for creation
Hi Jim,

Thanks for answering my question about articles for creation.

I would like to see a page created about someone I know who is still alive. I don't think it is ethical to write it myself. Will the page you directed me to (articles for creation) give me an opportunity to suggest the page?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica0Peace (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to tell me more about the specifics of the situation,, and I will do my best to give you advice tailored to your situation. Articles for Creation is a process that allows a draft article to be reviewed by more experienced editors, and users with a conflict of interest are allowed to submit drafts.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We also have WP:Requested articles, but that's less proactive.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

 * Thank you, . I look forward to driving my virtual electric car at top speed.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tabs on the user page
Hi Jim. I came here via Teahouse where I saw you have a particular interest in articles for deletion and in improving mediocre articles. My principle is that when I see an article that needs to be re-written I first announce the project on the relevant discussion page and then develop my version on my user page for people to comment upon before any question arises of replacing the existing article. I have now reached tab 7 on my user page (it's not so many!), and the format is sending the row of tabs beyond the margin. I have fumbled with editing my user page, but I can't see how to set up a new row of tabs. Can you advise? Thanks for your attention. Ridiculus mus (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Let me offer a few thoughts: First of all, it is far better to edit an existing article to improve it rather than "replacing" it. I am not sure what method you are using to replace, but we want to be sure to preserve the edit history. So, prune away the bad material, explaining whi in your edit summaries, and add new, well-referenced content.


 * As for the tabs, I have never seen anyone use that technique before. However, your user page is really not intended for developing article content. Instead, it is for saying a little (or a lot) about you as an editor. Instead, sandbox pages are used for that, and you can have as many of them as you want. You already have one sandbox page set up. You can create others by just adding a slash "/" after the sandbox URL, followed by a description. You will get a message saying that the page doesn't yet exist but inviting you to create it. Click, start editing, save, and use those pages as you see fit to improve the encyclopedia. So it could be Sandbox/Lincoln and Sandbox/Washington and Sandbox/Kennedy if you are developing content for U.S. presidents. I hope this helps.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  07:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Before I read your response I had resolved the issue myself by creating sub-pages.  I see what you mean about the sandbox (I thought it was for experimenting with formats), but I have been using tabs on my user page for a few years already and they seemed to suit the purpose.  Now it seems I might end up in breach of WP:UP.  I guess I should move what is on my tabs in the user page to sandbox tabs.  As for replacing (in the sense of moving/ merging), I have never myself done it yet and it has only occurred once.  What I do is develop on the relevant discussion page arguments as to why an article needs to be re-written, and propose my re-write (which occurs on my user page).  To take the most recent example, the article The Missionary Position is riddled with errors.  Editing will involve deleting all but one of the existing sections and replacing them wholesale.  Thanks for your helpful comments and suggestions. Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that you have read the book carefully and are fully prepared to edit the article. My recommendation is to begin removing the overt inaccuracies, recasting each sentence to more accurately reflect the book's content. Personally, I see no need to remove a section unless it is a hoax. For example, if there was a section on her relationship with Margaret Thatcher and the book never mentions Thatcher even once, then of course remove that. But if it discusses Haiti but the synopsis is inaccurate, remove the errors and better summarize what Hitchens argues.


 * On a broader point, this seems not to be neither a book nor an article getting a lot of attention right now. Accordingly, I do not think it necessary to post such a lengthy and detailed critique on the talk page. Instead, I would leave a much shorter message declaring your intent to improve, with a brief summary of identified problems. Then jump into the article and improve the darned thing. Silence is consent. If you get push back from other editors, engage with them on the talk page. Otherwise, forge ahead boldly. Good luck.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes of a book
Hi! I added quotes to book references in Draft:Doryrhamphus excisus, but do you think it's excessive because they all reference the same page? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . I consolidated your citations into a single reference using the refname function. I think that quoting so extensively from a single page may possibly be considered a copyright violation. I recommend limiting quotes in a reference to cases where it is truly necessary to substantiate the claim. Over-quoting a single source is not necessary, in my view.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and thanks for that! Bananasoldier (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at the edit-a-thon :)
Thanks, Jim, for your help with the Anna Banana article today. I'm really happy to have met you at the Wikipedia Art And Feminism Meetup in San Francisco. :) Msannakoval (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was truly a pleasure in several ways, . It is always great to meet Wikipedians face to face. Please do not hesitate to ask me anything, anytime, when you think I might possibly be of assistance.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Meeting other Wikipedians in person does make a difference, and so does editing together! I felt the same sort of camaraderie with the other editors at the meetup today as I used to feel with other food pantry volunteers, and the same sense of accomplishment -- like we were doing good together. :) Your offer to ask questions whenever means more than you know. It's not easy to edit Wikipedia! Having a familiar, friendly, nearby helping hand is a huge comfort. I'll be in touch again to be sure! :) Msannakoval (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I participated in a cooperative volunteer food distribution program in Vallejo in the late 1990s called "SHARES", so I know what you mean. Unfortunately, that program is no longer around.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thankfully Wikipedia still is! :) Msannakoval (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's ensure that it thrives for decades and centuries to come, . I believe that it will.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and perhaps you might also want to read [my comments on the relevant talk page  DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Howdy!
Are you around in Emails? <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  23:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Howdy to you too, . It is wonderful to see you back on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I was working and driving when you emailed me. I will respond now.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Interest in contributing to California related articles
Hello! I saw your named on Wikiproject United States and that you have an interest in California. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would like to contribute to this area as well. Do you have any suggestions for articles that need work? Or what tasks a newcomer could take on in this area? I lived and traveled throughout northern California for the most part, so that's the geographic area I'm most comfortable with/have interest in. But I'm of course willing to help out however I can with the project. Looking forward to hearing from you, Thanks! ArielEBarry (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, . My suggestion is to browse as many articles as possible about California topics that interest you, and take note of any shortcomings in the articles, and then set out to improve those articles. One way to find articles needing work is by using the categories at the bottom of well-written articles you find. For example, Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo was an important figure in early California history. I happen to live in southern Napa County, in the area where he lived and worked, which was southern Napa and Sonoma counties, and western Solano county. At the very bottom of that article are 13 categories, most of which are California specific. Clicking on those categories will lead you to many more related articles, and you may find it interesting and useful to improve some of them. If you tell me a bit more specifically what sort of things interest you, or where you have knowledge, then I may be able to give you more specific recommendations. Please feel freeto ask me questions at any time. And thank you for joining in the effort to improve this encyclopedia.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist). 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Need your comment about this AFD
Remember me? From Articles for deletion/Territorial disputes of India and Nepal? I need your comment on Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination), I may agree with the AFD, if we think about 2 days(or 30 hours) older diff. But now, the article has been wholly changed. Thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC
If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the  debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at  Talk:Justin Bieber Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for Teahouse Comments
Jim,

Thank you so much for responding to my question about industry sources for my ceiling tiles article. You input was very helpful!

Robin (my real name) Onehorsetown61 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, .  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Anita Kelsey
Hi Jim,

Sorry, couldn't find the discussion on whether to delete the Anita Kelsey - Cat Behaviourist page. I thought the Canine and Feline Behaviour Association member page was independent?

That's my two pence worth.

Cheers,

David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buickmaria (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ultimate Unification Theory - the unification of Science & Spirituality / Mysticism
Hi Jim, I forgot to include the link to the original paper at the Tea House. Here it is http://www.bpramana.org/metascience/UUT.pdf

Thanks B. Pramana111.220.235.196 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa (extended)
Again, I want to apologize for being aggressive. I am truly sorry, and I sincerely hope that we can be Wikibuddies. I am not trying to explain away my actions, but I thought that you should know why I reacted the way I did. To make a long story as short as possible, I made this account 4 years ago so that I could edit the Hendrix bio, which was in a sad state at that time. I first practiced editing on several articles for a couple of years because I wanted the Hendrix article to be worthy of the topic.

About 18 months ago I started editing the Hendrix bio in earnest, and in that time there have been many sock trolls and vandals who tried to run me off the page or waste my time to slow my progress. I persevered, and copyedited the massive article with little or no help from anyone. Just about every FAC I've participated in was filled with all kinds of drama, which at times made me want to quit the project. Believe it or not, all I want to do is edit; I don't like theses disputes and conflicts as much as it might seem; I could live without the stress. So, I thought that if I waited until the Hendrix bio was as tight as I could make it that I might have a chance to avoid the drama that is sometimes FAC. My efforts paid-off, and the FAC went swimmingly well with no opposition; that is until the image issue came-up. Then it was full-on drama-fest, with Doc suggesting that the article might not get to FAC with the image, but removing the image was not an option. So in essence, my dream of a drama-free Hendrix FAC was completely ripped apart by what I viewed as two people who didn't care at all about my 2,000+ edits to the article as long as that one image was kept. I probably took it too personally when you started criticizing my sourcing of the incident and casting doubt about my general knowledge of the subject. To those points I want to add that a) I didn't add the mugshot source, it was there when I started. I should have swapped it out, but I knew the incident was a big can of worms that I didn't think should be gone into in the summary article, so I left it as is was. b) I used a wrong word two during the FFD, which I sometimes do (E.g., dropped when I should have said acquitted), and which seemed to make you doubt my general knowledge and/or basic intelligence, which insulted me. I took it the wrong way, and overreacted, but my heart was always in the right place. All I ever wanted was to write the best article on Jimi Hendrix that I could, and I still say that I've done exactly that! Cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , first of all, I consider our disagreement resolved and all is well between us. I never intended comments I made about a specific factual point (charges dropped vs. a jury trial) to be construed as a general criticism of your knowledge of Hendrix's life. I am a guy who loved his music as a teenager when he was alive and performing, and loves it still all these many years later. But I have never studied the details of his life until now, though I knew the general outlines. For me, there was something about seeing that mugshot that fascinated me and motivated me to delve into that story. I grew up in Detroit and the police harassment of the MC5 in particular and hard rock counterculture in general was a formative experience for me. I need to return to work now but I want you to know that I do appreciate your comments, and we will collaborate going forward.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Marriage
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. 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 Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
Simple, really. Why aren't you an admin yet? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  15:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am honored that you have asked,, and have responded by email.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  00:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank
I appreciate your thanking me for my edit on 2011 Tucson shooting. Thank you.

P.S. I am also a fan of Nikola Tesla.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you for thanking me for thanking you. Are you familiar with Alphonse and Gaston? I am sure that I will figure out the Tesla reference in the middle of the night. Thanks.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Release of Images as free
Hi Jim, You had responded to questions I had asked in the Teahouse and saw your "Let's Discuss" signature so here I am to discuss. Actually I have another question regarding the release of images for free use. I have communicated with the artist I'm writing a page for and she agreed to give me some images of herself and her work. So I've been browsing the Wikipedia pages for information on securing a release from her. I would suspected that there would be a release form that would be signed by her or something online requiring a digital signature. Could you fill me in on what is required?

Thanks, Murray Mursimon (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Be sure your artist friend fully understands the implications of releasing a photo of one of her paintings under a Creative Commons license. In brief, anyone, anywhere will be able to use that image for any reason including commercial purposes, without permission. Attribution is required, though. The license must be issued by the artist and the photographer, who has a derivative copyright. So the easiest is if she takes the photo herself, and sets up a Wikimedia Commons account, identifying herself as the artist, and uploads herself. If you take a portrait photo of her, then you are the copyright holder of that photo, and can upload it to Wikimedia Commons yourself. The upload tools at Commons will explain everything, but all the forms need to be filled out properly. It is possible to do this with physical paperwork, but that is complicated and slow. Do it online if at all possible.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have requested a case for arbitration in which I mention you.  Giano  21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you referred to my comment as civil. Thank you. I have no more general comments on this matter, but will try my best to answer any specific question directed my way.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pezzullo reinstatement
Last August, you (or someone else, it was unclear, but your name was on the talk page) deleted a page for a New Jersey politician named Richard Pezzullo, a page which I had a hand in creating. It has come to my attention in recent days that Richard is again seeking office in New Jersey, this time as a United States Senator, and has gained quite a bit of traction including press mentions and radio interviews. I'm not sure how you or I would go about restoring his page to Wikipedia (if that's the appropriate course of action),along with updated information and sources on his latest campaign. Any help or guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your time and effort in making Wikipedia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoquestmoo (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:POLITICIAN all variations of his name should redirect to United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2014, and that is where all candidates can be described neutrally. If he wins a Senate seat or other high office, a separate biography would then be appropriate.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  23:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Neoquestmoo —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way,, I did not delete the article myself although I recommend deleting it. The deletion was carried out by an administrator called anetode. I am not an administrator, so don't have the power either to delete or to reinstate articles.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Toronto article
So, what do you think of the Conspiracy theory section? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, . I am not big on promoting conspiracy theories per se, but rather support covering what highly reliable sources actually conclude about these matters. The more controversial the assertion, the better quality sourcing I expect. I have my doubts about the reliability of Alex Constantine as a source. I will give my preliminary talk page hunch here, as opposed to a highly informed opinion. I believe that U.S. intelligence, through programs like COINTELPRO and Operation CHAOS and several others, sought to disrupt radical groups, antiwar groups, black groups like the Panthers, feminist groups and so on. They fomented rivalries and paranoia and factionalism and divisiveness that led, for example, to many factional deaths in the black movement. I think that campaign was directed also toward the counterculture, especially those figures including rock performers, considered dangerous for various reasons. I think the evidence regarding John Lennon is the strongest, though many other celebrities suffered to a greater or lesser extent. The John Sinclair Freedom Rally, which I attended, is a Michigan example of the type of John Lennon/Yoko Ono activities that drew FBI wrath. In Michigan, where I lived at the time, radical countercultural activities came under very heavy attack. So, I would not rule out the possibility that Hendrix was caught up in that. Even though he wasn't overtly political, his persona was so "subversive" in the cultural sense, that I would not be surprised if he was a target in some way. But I think that far better sourcing is needed to claim that the Toronto bust was a part of that kind of coordinated political campaign, as opposed to just a generalized hostility by "the establishment" against the counterculture.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about Constantine, which is why I only included the quote from the intelligence memo, a mention of Hendrix's FBI file, and the claim of Hendrix getting listed as "subversive". Maybe we can find some more reliable sourcing for this; I'll keep looking. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you make of this? Do you think it speaks to harassment, recklessness, or was Jimi messing with them? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea based on solid evidence,, and I am sure that you have a deeper understanding of Hendrix's personality than I do. So please consider my opinion only a hunch: I think that Hendrix may have deliberately provoked a clearly unjustified arrest, in order to throw the prosecutors, the RCMP and the customs agents off their balance at the beginning of the trial. "Bold" was a word he liked, after all. But I could be wrong. I would never try to add any of this to article space.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, but I think you might be on to something. Its hard to understand how such an intelligent person could make such an error. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Double account
Can I unify the two accounts I created yesterday by error to the registered one with my user name? Or fully delete the question at teahouse that appeared unregistered? I prefer not to have my IP number public. Can you direct me to instructions? Thank you very much! Geometricjewels (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Simply stop using the mistaken name. You can ask an administrator to remove the IP address. See WP:REVDEL for instructions.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  16:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see....
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)